Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BLYTH HARBOUR BILL [LORDS]

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 2) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 2) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first time and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That, no petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no

Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

RIVER HUMBER (BURCOM OUTFALL) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That, no petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— [The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That, no petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

PORT OF FOSDYKE BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Port of Fosdyke Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That the Petition relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Combined Heat and Power (Leicester)

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest progress of Leicester city's planned combined heat and power scheme.

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive reports from those city combined heat and power district heating feasibility studies to which his Department has provided funding.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): Consortia in receipt of grant-aid regularly advise my Department on their progress. The Leicester consortium expects to announce the results of its


studies early in December, and the Belfast and Edinburgh consortia are on schedule to complete their work programmes by March next year.

Mr. Bruinvels: As Leicester is the lead city, is my hon. Friend aware that the consortium is particularly keen to get the go-ahead to start finalising the arrangements? Is he further aware that Leicester has already prepared an energy action programme which will save householders and businesses in the city £10 million over the next 12 months? Will he, therefore, do everything in his power to support the consortium—I know that he has done so up to now – to ensure that the citizens of Leicester benefit from energy savings?

Mr. Hunt: I commend my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) for their very strong advocacy of the merits of the Leicester scheme, and I await the report with eager anticipation.

Mr. Rost: Is my hon. Friend aware that some area boards — including the East Midlands and Leicester boards — co-operate constructively with city consortia while others drag their feet and find excuses not to cooperate? Yorkshire's lack of co-operation with the Sheffield scheme is an example of such action.
Will my hon. Friend accept that perhaps he needs to give clear guidelines on how the Energy Act 1983 should be interpreted, particularly the adopt and support section for district heating and CHP?

Mr. Hunt: I shall investigate what my hon. Friend has said. As a prime supporter of the relevant section of the Energy Act, he knows that it created a guaranteed market for the sale of electricity from CHP schemes and placed a duty on electricity boards to adopt and support viable projects. I understand that, in line with section 19, electricity boards are actively involved in evaluating a number of CHP schemes. The Leicester scheme is one example and the involvement of the CEGB in that scheme has been commended by the promoters. I shall, of course, investigate the points made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister take this opportunity to congratulate Leicester city council on the excellent way in which it has made progress on the scheme, which we hope will provide cheap electricity for all sorts of people in the city? As the Government sparked off the scheme, will the Minister undertake that when we require major capital expenditure, in which major Government involvement will be needed, that money will be available and will not be withdrawn, as has happened in so many other instances involving Government funding for local authorities?

Mr. Hunt: As the hon. and learned Gentleman should know, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) arranged for me to meet the leaders of the consortia, when I was able to congratulate all those concerned.

Geothermal Power

Mr. Maples: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about his Department's support for geothermal power.

Mr. David Hunt: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced in June that the hot dry rock

project in Cornwall is being extended for a further two years at an additional cost of £5.85 million. A further £1 million has been allocated to related support work.
A major review of the technology will take place next year. An important input will be an assessment of the commercial viability. I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses copies of a report on the economics by Dr. Shock of the energy technology support unit.

Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend's statement is most welcome. Can he assure the House that so long as the research continues to be successful the Government will follow through the project to the commercial exploitation stage, and can he say when that might be?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to stress the need for proper evaluation towards commercial exploitation. I am pleased to announce to the House that both RTZ and Taylor Woodrow are now involved in the project. I hope that other United Kingdom companies will participate in this challenging venture. It will be necessary to take major decisions next year and I hope that the necessary preparatory work will have been done by then.

Dr. Michael Clark: Is there a real hope that geothermal energy will provide a substantial amount of the country's energy needs? Many people place store on alternative sources, believing them to be infinite and large. How large is that alternative source likely to be, is it economically viable and will it make a significant contribution to the country's energy needs in the next century?

Mr. Hunt: We hope that a commercial prototype will be in operation, with industrial collaboration, by the mid-1990s. My hon. Friend is right in thinking that it will not make a significant contribution to electricity generation. However, the United Kingdom has established itself as the world leader in geothermal hot dry rock technology and has achieved the highest circulation rates in the world.

Coal Industry

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the decline in the total manpower in the mining industry since the end of the miners' strike; and how many of those men are still seeking employment in the industry.

Mr. David Hunt: Since the end of the miners' strike to 4 October 1986 the total number of men on colliery books has fallen by 46,732 to 125,631. No part of this reduction was due to compulsory redundancy. The output from the deep mine sector of the coal industry is virtually unchanged.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister recognise how disturbing the figures are? What will be the trend for manpower in the mining industry in the next five or 10 years? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that in areas such as Fife male unemployment is well in excess of 30 per cent.? Does he agree that the men who have been victimised by British Coal, although they were guilty of no offence before the courts, were subject to a measure of victimisation which is indefensible by any standards? Will the Minister make representations, particularly to the Scottish management, to cease such victimisation in the interests of improved industrial relations?

Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the question of dismissed miners is a matter for British Coal


management. Instead of highlighting and distorting figures, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that British Coal is taking urgent measures to ensure that coal is more competitive. When the hon. Gentleman talks about a reduction in numbers, will he please recall that between 1964 and 1970, under Labour Governments, manpower in Scotland went down from 54,600 to 30,200 — a significant reduction of 24,400.

Mr. Lofthouse: What manpower figures is British Coal budgeting for in 1987–88? If that target is not reached by voluntary redundancies, will there be compulsory redundancies?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that there have been no compulsory redundancies. That remains British Coal policy. Future output will depend on coal continuing to win a significant share in the highly competitive energy market place.

Mr. Heddle: When my hon. Friend visits Lea Hall colliery, at Rugeley in my constituency, tomorrow, will he pay tribute to the 80 per cent. of the work force there who continued to work during the strike, despite, and in the face of, the most vicious victimisation? Is not the only way to keep jobs and improve job prospects in Rugeley to ensure that affairs are run on truly democratic lines?

Mr. Hunt: I very much look forward, not only to going underground at Lea Hall tomorrow, but to meeting the leaders of the work force, to show them that there is one political party and one Government who have not forgotten the tremendous debt owed by this country to those working miners who kept the industry in being during that unnecessary and tragic strike.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister not aware that there are still outstanding cases of miners who were unfairly dismissed during the strike, who took their cases to industrial tribunals and won them, yet who have not been reinstated because of the intransigence of British Coal? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the chairman of British Coal that it is about time those men were reinstated, in the interests of natural justice and good industrial relations, and that it should not continue to victimise them?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that although more than 1,000 miners were dismissed as a direct result of the 1984–85 strike, more than half of them —527—have since been taken back by British Coal. The chairman recently announced his intention to hold a final internal review of outstanding cases of alleged unfair dismissal. It is a matter for British Coal to determine.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the private sector of the coal industry is anxious to expand coal production and also the number of jobs available in the industry? Does he agree that it is madness to maintain the restrictions on private sector output at their current low levels, and that they should be increased?

Mr. Hunt: I agree that the private sector makes a very significant contribution to our coal industry, not only through its 154 deep mines, but through the private licensed sector. It is good that that output has continued to rise over recent years, and projections are that it will continue to do so.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister referred to the need for the coal industry to be competitive so as to maintain employment levels. Will he bear in mind that whereas 150

million tonnes of coal were produced in 1974, the figure has now dropped to 90 million tonnes? Will he further bear in mind the unused development capital in the industry and consider writing off some of that so that interest charges will not be a charge on the industry, which would allow it to expand and create more jobs?

Mr. Hunt: Under this Government taxpayers' money has been used to the best possible advantage by maintaining a record level of investment, mainly in existing collieries rather than in new ones. Since 1979 investment has totalled almost £5 billion, which is far in excess of anything ever projected under any Labour Government.

Mr. Marlow: What would be the effect on employment in the coal industry if Mr. Arthur Scargill were to chuck in his appointment as life president of the National Union of Mineworkers and seek, together with Bernie Grant and at least two members of Militant Tendency and sundry others, to join this House in the Labour persuasion at the next general election?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend has rightly pointed out the true face of the Labour party. It will be interesting to see the reaction of the Labour leadership to the increasing number of Militant candidates.

Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister has said many times this afternoon that there have been no compulsory redundancies in the coal industry. Is that not somewhat misleading, when many men who had worked for as much as 25 years in certain skills in the coal industry were offered only unskilled work when they transferred to other pits? Therefore, there was no real choice for them.

Mr. Hunt: I shall merely repeat that it is a commitment of British Coal that men who are made redundant will have had an opportunity of continuing to work in the industry. Instead of constantly making party political points, I would prefer the hon. Lady to join me in trying to work for further markets for coal and in recognising the fact that, in South Wales, British Coal Enterprise Ltd. has now broken all previous records in providing 2,796 new jobs. The hon. Lady should concentrate her energies on helping 13ritish Coal Enterprise Ltd., instead of making such points.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister concede that, particularly in Scotland, there has been a great diminution in mining employment? Will he give the figures for the period of office of the Tory Government, from 1979 until now, showing that diminution, particularly in West Fife? Will he concede the point that has been made that, in the interests of good industrial relations, it is essential that the new director in Scotland takes an active part in removing the stigma of the victimised miners, so that we may return to stability and good understanding?

Mr. Hunt: I shall let the hon. Gentleman have the detailed figures, but the point that I was making to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is that there is some humbug on the part of the Labour party in failing to recognise that there were significant numbers of redundancies in the coal industry before this Government came into office. Under this Government coal is regaining its rightful competitive place in the energy market.

Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that there is still great concern about the reinstatement of sacked miners in the


coalfields? Will the internal review to which he referred also consider cases of miners who have won their case at an industrial tribunal? If not, natural justice will not be carried out.

Mr. Hunt: The chairman of British Coal has made it clear that he will not put himself in the place of an industrial tribunal in seeking to review any decision that has already been made. He has also made it clear that he is willing to have a final internal review to look at all outstanding cases of alleged unfair dismissal. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would join us in making it clear that no one convicted of serious violence, harassment, or intimidation, or of breaches of the mines and quarries legislation, will be taken back. That is British Coal's position. It has every right to look to the hon. Gentleman for some support from time to time.

Renewable Energy

Mr. Amess: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about his Department's programme of research into renewable forms of energy.

Mr. David Hunt: The Government have identified the most promising renewable technologies for United Kingdom conditions, and substantial support is being given to their development. So far this year we have announced major extensions to our programmes on wind, tidal and geothermal energy, worth over £15 million.

Mr. Amess: Has my hon. Friend had any success so far in attracting contributions from external sources for his Department's programme, because it is vital that the private sector is involved if "renewables" are to be viable? Can he give me figures for each of the past five years?

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's enthusiasm. Major contributions have already been made to our programme from external sources, which have reached a record level this year. I shall arrange to place in the Library a financial table showing the past five years and the available information on these contributions.

Mr. Kennedy: Is it not likely that such a table would highlight the damaging reduction that the Government put through last year in support for research and development into alternative sources of energy? Is that not particularly self-defeating at a time when nuclear power is of such public and political concern? Might it not be in the best interests of the Government and the country if, in persuading people as to the merits of civil nuclear power industry, it were to be seen that we were not also foreclosing the option of developing research into "renewables"? Surely there is a role for both.

Mr. Hunt: The Government have maintained a record level of spending on renewables. Since 1979 over £93 million has been invested in renewable energy research and development by the Department of Energy, compared with just under £17 million in the previous five years. There are some changes from year to year due to major contracts falling in one year rather than the other, but if the hon. Gentleman examines the record he will find that no Government have done more for renewable energy and research into wind and passive solar technology, biofuels, tidal energy and geothermal hot dry rock technology. Perhaps he will acknowledge that truth.

Mr. Mudd: My hon. Friend will be aware of the contents of Professor Shock's report and the suggestion

that it has identified sources of hot dry rocks that might show a 50-year cycle of life. What steps is the Department taking to attract the industrial investment that is necessary to bring this source of energy to fulfilment?

Mr. Hunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend, who has been vigilant in ensuring that I constantly meet those involved in the project and in canvassing its advantages. He is right in stressing that Professor Shock's report concludes [hat electricity generation at an estimated cost of 4·2 per kW hour is the most attractive option for hot dry rock technology, although the cost is subject to many uncertainties, such as drilling costs and reservoir flow. Now that we have the involvement of RTZ and Taylor Woodrow and Professor Shock's important report, we are moving towards a major decision next year. I know what my hon. Friend will be urging us to do. I hope that we shall see hot dry rock technology becoming more commercially viable.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that 50 miles from San Francisco there is a huge area covered with 1,000 gigantic windmills, and that similarly near Miami and various other cities similar windmills are to be found? The area covered is enormous and the noise is horrendous. Will my hon. Friend accept that although the Government's commitment to alternative sources of energy is highly commendable, and infinitely better than the stance taken by the Labour party, the fact remains that these alternative sources can supply only a fraction of the power that will be required in Britain in the next century?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. I, too, had the opportunity of visiting the Altamont pass a few months ago, and I can tell my hon. Friend that the number of aerogenerators has increased from 1,000 to 5,000. It is correct to say that this has aroused tremendous hostility on the part of environmental groups. It was especially satisfying to be in the Altamont pass and to recognise that the finest aerogenerators there were made by James Howden and Co. of Glasgow.

Non-nuclear Energy

Mr. Speller: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will undertake to increase the percentage of research and development funding allocated to non-nuclear energy sources.

Mr. Hunt: I am delighted to report that my right hon. Friend's Department's provision for non-nuclear research and development in 1986–87 is £44·91 million, compared with the estimated expenditure in 1985–86 of £40·2 million, an increase of over 10 per cent.

Mr. Speller: First, I thank my hon. Friend for the increased expenditure on renewables. Having done that, may I suggest that the percentage, which I obtained by a previous question, of 17 per cent. for everything other than nuclear energy is illogical when it is remembered that the 17 per cent. includes the clean burning of coal and all the other items that my hon. Friend has mentioned, including the cost of the energy efficiency office. Does my hon. Friend accept that were there to be anywhere in the world another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island incident, we would find our research budget to have been hopelessly small, especially should it suddenly transpire that there was to be no further nuclear programme?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is well known for his advocacy of the renewables programme, and I hope he will accept from me that the Government have provided a record level of funding for research and development into renewables. My hon. Friend is right to stress constantly the need for further expenditure on clean coal, but I remind the House that current annual public sector expenditure on coal technology research and development is about £100 million, including about £50 million on the environmentally clean use of coal. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that there is there a high level of spend on renewables. We should be proud that we have all four major sources of energy — oil, gas, coal and nuclear. Our energy policies should be to keep each option active and developing.

Mr. O'Brien: In view of the Minister's reply, does he agree that research and development into the four fuels should be equal, because there is as much interest in alternatives as in nuclear fuels and because the amount of money channelled into nuclear research and development is far in excess of that provided for non-nuclear R and D? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that research and development should be equalised?

Mr. Hunt: No. I do not believe that a valid comparison can be made. The hon. Gentleman should compare research and development in the oil, gas and coal industries. That is where a valid comparison may be made. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that over the past five years the Government have reached a record level of spending on renewables and fully intend that it should continue.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my hon. Friend agree that where large tranches of electricity are required, nuclear energy and coal energy are vital and that no form of renewables or non-nuclear fuels will suffice?

Mr. Hunt: I agree.

Mr. Eadie: Surely the most devastating question by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) concerned the allocation of resources to nuclear energy and to renewable sources of energy. The Minister was trying to state the spend on renewable sources of energy compared to that on nuclear research, but, of course, they were not at the races—more was spent on nuclear. We should be specific when talking about research. Will the Minister give the House a guarantee that, as a result of the privatisation of British Gas, research into making synthetic North sea gas from coal at Westfield —incidentally, that has been very successful — will not suffer as a consequence of any spending cuts?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is trying to drag a collection of red herrings across the record of the Department when he was Minister. Over five years, that Department spent less than £17 million on renewables. This Government have so far spent £93 million. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I thank my hon. Friend for answering all these questions and for his continuing support for the Severn barrage study. Will he make it clear that there is no conceivable way in which tidal energy can ever replace nuclear energy? Will he confirm that electricity demand is increasing again and that the contribution from the Severn tidal scheme would be the equivalent of only two or three years total growth?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right. He is right also to continue to reflect on the excellent speech on energy policy by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Although we are spending record amounts on renewables, and although this Government have done more for tidal energy than any previous Government, including the further inquiries and investigations into the Severn barrage and the possible Mersey barrage, it is right to reflect that the combination of all these energy sources will not have a significant impact, even on increased electricity demand, in the next 10 years.

Coal Industry

Mr. Couchman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy, in percentage terms, what is the improvement in output per manshift in the coal industry since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): Productivity increases by Britain's miners have now risen to new record levels for four successive weeks. For the week ending 11 October, average output per manshift was 3·48 tonnes. This is a record, representing a staggering 55 per cent. improvement over the average of 2·24 tonnes achieved in 1978–79. This continued growth in productivity demonstrates the determination of all concerned in the industry to succeed in the face of severe competition.

Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these remarkable figures completely justify the enthusiasm of the National Coal Board to pay by results rather than to submit to an annual round of blackmail by the National Union of Mineworkers? Have not those areas that worked on through the strike produced some of the very best of those results?

Mr. Walker: Yes. Also, I am glad to say that, as a result of the productivity incentive plans operated by the NCB, the men who are producing those fine figures are obtaining the financial benefit for doing so.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Secretary of State accept, as I and many of my hon. Friends do, that improved productivity has happened for many reasons? One reason is the investment that took place under the Labour Government—because major programmes take 10 to 12 years to come to fruition — and another is the investment that has taken place under this Government. Will the Secretary of State turn his mind, and not duck the question as the Under-Secretary did in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), to the investment that took place in collieries that have closed and where there is now a burden on the colleries that remain open, with a view to writing off that capital cost?

Mr. Walker: Obviously one has to review the financial background to the balance sheet of the Coal Board as time goes on. I accept that in all industries there comes a time for appropriate write-offs, and I promise that that will be reviewed. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned investment under both Governments. However, the fact is that under this Government investment has been higher than ever before, and I am glad to say that we are enjoying some of the results of that investment.

Mr. Barron: If that is so, may I ask the Minister why, under the Government, we have had the go-ahead for only one new colliery to take care of the future of the coal


industry? May I also ask why some Conservative Members are positively trying to stop the development of the south Warwickshire coalfield?

Mr. Walker: Plenty of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends rejoice at the enormous investment that we have put into existing pits. We cannot have it both ways. If we want to improve the performance of existing pits to help the mining communities concerned, that must be a high priority, and it has been under this Government.

Mr. Michael Morris: Do not the figures demonstrate that morale among ordinary miners must now be at its highest for many years? Does that not reflect the fact that what the ordinary miner wants is peace in the pits and good finn management from the leadership of British Coal?

Mr. Walker: Both sides of the House will regret the fact that the rationalisation of the coal industry has resulted in closures and voluntary redundancies. However, I am glad to tell the House that one of the most significant facts is that the new enterprise company has already provided almost 11,000 new jobs in coalmining communities.

Mr. Powley: When productivity measures were being introduced Mr. Arthur Scargill said that the accident rate in the coal mines would increase significantly. Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the accident rate has increased as a result of the improvements?

Mr. Walker: One thing is certain. The priority of anybody concerned with the coalmining industry is to see that the highest safety standards are operated. The safety regulations of the coal industry remain very strict, irrespective of any productivity agreements.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Secretary of State deny the logic of this impressive improvement, achieved as a result of the swift savagery of the contraction of the mining industry? Does he not agree that that logic should persuade him positively to support the greater use of coal in Britain? Does he not further agree that the Government should be much more insistent on achieving greater export markets in Europe and that they should make it clear that that improvement makes it obvious that the statistics about the price of coal presented to the Layfield inquiry should be withdrawn or sharply qualified?

Mr. Walker: The NCB is pursuing an active marketing policy. I have recently been to exhibitions and demonstrations for both the domestic and industrial use of coal which have been impressive. At the end of the day, the only way in which that can succeed is for the price to be competitive, and the only way in which that can be achieved is by retaining the present improvement in productivity, which compares favourably with what happened in the previous 10 years.

Mr. Eadie: I am sure the House will agree that we should pay due notice to the increase in output achieved by the miners of this country. However, how does our praise for miners increasing output square with what the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Minister said in a press release, to the effect that it is unquestionable that a fitter, slimmer coal industry is necessary? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a confession by a Government who want to see the industry contract? That is the language, not of a Minister responsible for coal, but of someone who has flung in the sponge because of the collapse of oil prices.

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman has heard many times in the House, there was no greater contraction of the coal industry than that which took place under Labour Governments. Therefore, it is strange to hear those views from the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman should also ask himself, with his interest in the coal industry, why between 1974 and 1978 under a Labour Government, compared with a 4 per cent. per annum improvement envisaged in the "Plan for Coal", productivity measured by output per manshift fell in each year.

British Coal Enterprise Ltd.

Mr. Alan Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of British Coal Enterprise Ltd.

19. Mr. Hickmet: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the operation of British Coal Enterprise Ltd.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Government welcome the impressive progress being made by British Coal Enterprise Ltd. The company has so far committed £16.8 million in support of 791 projects and has helped to create nearly 11,000 job opportunities.

Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that what he has told the House today will be widely welcomed by all those who are fair-mindedly willing to recognise that, in the context of the very necessary preservation of financial discipline, the Government have a humane and generous policy to help communities in real need?

Mr. Walker: The important thing about the enterprise company is not just the money that the Government have made available, but the fact that it has attracted a great deal more money with it. I hope that, with the £40 million that we have so far allocated to the enterprise company, about £200 million worth of investment will be attracted into coalmining areas. I hope that that will provide about 25,000 new jobs and much better job opportunities for those miners in areas where coal is likely to run out in the near future.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware that in communities such as Nantgarw and Cwm 1,200 job losses have just been announced? In recent years miners have moved to those pits under the no compulsory redundancy scheme and now will be made redundant again. The efforts of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. are hopelessly inadequate to meet the needs of communities facing such losses.

Mr. Walker: I recognise and very much sympathise with any community that suffers such substantial job losses. We heard many pessimistic remarks about the contribution that the enterprise company could make. If the enterprise company in its first two to three years produces 25,000 new jobs in coalmining areas and expansion, not contraction, in businesses, that is a considerable contribution.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Independent Museums

Mr. Key: asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the pattern of development of independent museums.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): There are now as many as 1,200 independent museums, many of which have been established in the past 15 years. I have been struck by their strong sense of enterprise in marketing and management.

Mr. Key: Will my right hon. Friend join me in saluting the independent museums, the number of which has doubled in the past 15 years? Will he especially congratulate them on their energy and enthusiasm in giving a lead to the public sector? Does he agree that most of those museums charge and that the public are willing to pay for the excellence that they provide?

Mr. Luce: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the fact that, in the past 15 years, the number of museums has doubled and that the new independent museums—many of which I have been able to visit—act as a spur to a better service for the public. As for his second question, it is true that that vast bulk of the indepedent musuems impose a charge. That appears to be something that is welcomed by the public, since they enter those museums and the charges enable museums to provide a better service.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Norman Buchan — and a happy birthday.

Mr. Buchan: I have reached the time of life when I much prefer to ignore birthdays, Mr. Speaker. On the question of paying to enter independent museums, does the Minister recognise that there is a crucial difference between them and our public institutions? Will he join me in deploring the fact that the consequence of the Victoria and Albert museum introducing voluntary charges, and the predicted charge to enter the natural history museum, is a 40 per cent. collapse in attendance? How can he say that this benefits the British people when we are nearly halving attendances? How can he claim that the public support such a policy when they are staying away in droves?

Mr. Luce: I had hoped that, on his birthday, on which I also congratulate the hon. Member, he would have asked a slightly more cheerful question. It has always been entirely up to the chairmen and trustees of museums to decide whether raising charges, either voluntarily or through a straight admission charge, is in the interests of improving the service provided by museums. If they believe that in the longer term, it will improve the service and encourage more of the public to come in, it is right that they should do so. The choice is theirs and should be left in their hands.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that, within the voluntary charges policy of the Natural History museum and of the Victoria and Albert museum, specific periods are set aside, so people will always be able to get in free of charge? Children's parties, elderly people and other special categories will always be able to go in free. Does he agree that that policy is absolutely right and must continue at all times?

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend. When trustees introduce charges, they should seriously consider adequate exemptions, as happens at the National Maritime museum. The system seems to work perfectly well there. I find it strange that one can go to almost any country in the world, whether this side or the other side of the Iron

Curtain, and find that charges are imposed on visitors to museums. Why do Opposition Members have such an incredible hang-up about this?

Theatre Companies

Mr. Freud: asked the Minister for the Arts whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Charities Act as it affects subsidised theatre companies.

Mr. Luce: I am not aware of any particular difficulties.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister speak to his civil servants and see whether there might be a way in which a theatre can receive charitable status and be able to practise forward financial planning, which is currently impossible under the Charities Act 1985?

Mr. Luce: I will examine that. No particular problem of this kind has been brought to my attention before, but I promise to look at it and let the hon. Gentleman know what I think.

Mr. Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Chichester Festival Theatre, a registered charity, which without any support in the form of subsidies from the Arts Council or local authorities has, year after year, made a substantial cash return, and which continues to provide good theatre with 95 to 100 per cent. occupancy? Are there not lessons for other theatres with charitable status in the Chichester experience?

Mr. Luce: I am very glad indeed to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the remarkable achievement of Chichester theatre. It is a very good example of self-help in the theatre world. It is a great achievement that, without any support from the taxpayer, it is able to raise adequate resources. I hope that, like other theatres, it will find that the changes in the Budget, which encourage more giving by corporations and, from next April, by individuals, will help theatres and other arts organisations.

Regional Arts Associations'

Mr. Sumberg: asked the Minister for the Arts if he will ensure that the arm's length principle of funding the regional arts associations through the Arts Council of Great Britain is maintained.

Mr. Luce: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sumberg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that arms's length funding is vital? Is it not somewhat ironic that the so-called alliance is as divided on this issue as on defence, because whereas the Social Democratic party wants to keep the Arts Council, the Liberal party wants to abolish it?

Mr. Luce: I agree that it is becoming a rather characteristic feature of the alliance that it seems increasingly divided on every aspect of its policies. As for arm's length policy, it is true that the Liberal and the Labour parties now appear to want to emasculate the Arts Council, which has operated extremely well since the second world war, whereas the SDP appears to be in favour of the present policy.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that his complacency about the funding of regional arts is a matter of great concern to those who do not live in London and


the south-east, as arts spending is still heavily biased towards that region? It is convenient for Conservative Members, southerners as they are, to believe that that bias is in the national interest, but those from the north or other parts of the nation know that it is obvious that arts spending does not favour people outside London and the south-east.

Mr. Luce: There is no doubt that most of the regional arts associations do a very important and good job, as I have seen when I have travelled around the country. The resources that have been allocated by the Arts Council to the regional arts associations have increased substantially from just under £12 million in 1983–84 to £25 million in 1986–87. That shows our commitment to the regional arts associations.

Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Arts Council will continue to fund direct, and not through the regional arts association, the Royal Festival Hall, the Queen Elizabeth Hall and the Purcell Room on the South Bank, which, under the direct aegis of the Arts Council, are doing a first-class job and attracting larger audiences than they did under the late unlamented Greater London council?

Mr. Luce: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the job that some of these national institutions, including those on the South Bank, are doing, I know of no indication from the Arts Council that it wishes to change its policy on the methods of financing these big institutions. As I said earlier, for some of the smaller arts organisations throughout the country there has been a shift of policy and more money has gone to the regional arts associations.

Mr. Soley: What does the Minister intend to do about London now that the GLC has gone? I have in my constituency the West Six Theatre Company, which is to be given a final small grant by the London Residuary Body and then it will go bankrupt. That is exactly what will happen to many arts organsiations in London. What does the Minister intend to do about it?

Mr. Luce: It was for that reason that a year ago this Government found an additional £25 million to help with the transitional problems that were connected with catering for the abolition areas. All the evidence suggests, that, thanks to the good efforts of the local authorities, the Arts Council and the regional arts associations, most of the arts bodies that merit public support have been given it.

Arts Council

Mr. Robert Banks: asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain; and what was discussed.

Mr. Luce: I met the chairman on 6 October, when we discussed matters of mutual concern.

Mr. Banks: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he join me in congratulating Glasgow on having been selected as the city of culture in Europe? Is it not an example that should be emulated by other cities throughout the United Kingdom? Does he recognise that culture plays a very major part in creating an image for a city and providing enjoyment for its inhabitants?

Mr. Luce: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Last week I was very glad to be able to go to Glasgow to announce that the city is to be nominated as the city which, subject to the agreement of my colleagues, the European Culture Ministers, will be the city of culture for Europe in 1990. Glasgow has made great efforts in demonstrating the range of arts facilities that it has to offer. We have every reason to he confident that it will be an excellent city to be so designated in 1990.

Mr. Buchan: As someone who was totally neutral as regards the eight or nine cities that were bidding for the title, I am perfectly happy about the decision of the Minister for the Arts. Those who know Glasgow know that it will truly represent the best characteristics of the arts dial are developed in Scotland and in Britain as a whole. However, when the Minister has finished congratulating himself and his Back Benchers, will he tell me whether the chairman of the Arts Council has ever said that he also approves of the tapering off of the £25 million about which the Minister has just been boasting? Next year the €25 million will be reduced to £20 million, and the reduction in the rate of inflation has also to be taken into account. Very few of the bodies that were defended by my hon. Friend will survive such a policy.

Mr. Luce: On the hon. Gentleman's first question, it is very good to have had his unanimous support. It is the first lime since I have been the Minister for the Arts that I have seen him quite so cheerful. As for the taper, it has always been made clear that after finding £25 million in the first year of abolition to cater for the initial transitional cost the Government would be looking to the local authorities to play an increasing part in the years ahead. For that reason we look to them now to play an even more prominent role than they played last year, and I have every confidence that they will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Public Appointment Unit

Mr. Coombs: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will encourage women to offer themselves as candidates to the public appointment unit.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Yes, Sir. The Government are keen to extend the role of women in advisory and policy-making bodies.

Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm recent newspaper reports that the Prime Minister is taking a particular interest in this matter? Is he aware of the organisation called Women in Public Life, and does he support its objectives? Does my right hon. Friend see the public appointments unit carrying out its responsibility in that area by giving extra publicity to the desire to see more women enter the Civil Service and other aspects of public life?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I congratulate him on the lead that he is taking on this important issue. It is true that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is taking a close interest and would like more women to be appointed to these positions of importance. I have noted the organisation, Women in Public Life, the work that it is doing and the conference that it recently held. The public appointments unit now


has on its register 5,000 men but only 1,000 women and special efforts are being made to obtain more names for that list. I hope that if hon. Members have any names they will let me know.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Prime Minister, as evidence of her sincerity in this matter, will seek to appoint a women as the new vice-chairman of the Tory party?

Mr. Luce: There are only certain things that I am answerable for, and on this occasion I shall stick to my brief.

Mr. Stokes: In view of tomorrow's business, am I right in assuming that the public appointments unit does not cover any ecclesiastical appointments?

Mr. Luce: As far as I am aware it does not cover any ecclesiastical appointments, but I shall confirm that to my hon. Friend.

Civil Service Unions (Meetings)

Mr. Key: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service unions; and what was discussed.

Mr. Parry: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what subjects were discussed at his last meeting with representatives of the Civil Service unions.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service unions; and what was discussed.

Mr. Luce: I have informal meetings from time to time with the Civil Service unions. Topics of mutual interest are discussed.

Mr. Key: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the genuine concern over pay, particularly in the scientific grades of the Civil Service, which is affecting morale and efficiency? Will he pay further visits to establishments in my constituency to see for himself?

Mr. Luce: I know of my hon. Friend's keen interest in civil servants, particularly scientists, since he has a considerable number in his constituency. Having just visited, with great pleasure, the arts in his constituency, I shall try to visit his civil servants at some time in the future. I should like to reassure him that we are taking corrective action to try to stem the decline in the number of scientists, and that includes improved starting salaries for new recruits and pay additions which put salaries above the level of the overall increase that the Civil Service achieved this year. Those and various other measures are designed to try to encourage scientists to stay in the Civil Service.

Mr. Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the executive and president of the Civil and Public Services Association on arranging for a re-run of its election, which is something that I have called for on many occasions? Will he ensure that when he next meets the unions the ballot will be a secret one, controlled by the central balloting system, with people sending their ballot forms direct to the central system rather than a local ballot, because the people in Leicester were most concerned at the unsatisfactory result, electing John Macreadie, a well-known undemocratic gentleman?

Mr. Luce: To the first question my answer is yes, Sir. The procedures for running elections are a matter for the unions.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister discuss with Civil Service unions the staffing of Department of Health and Social Security offices and the possible shortage of staff, because it would appear from the complaints in my postbag that, despite the excellence of the staff at John William House, there is a backlog and waiting list and a need to increase the staff to look after those of my constituents who are unemployed and in receipt of DHSS benefits?

Mr. Luce: I realise that there is a problem in some parts of the country, and it is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced some months ago that the number of people in the social services departments would be increased by 5,000, which would enable more hard-pressed departments to be covered more effectively.

Mr. Sackville: Did my right hon. Friend have a chance to discuss with Civil Service unions the further relocation of civil servants' jobs? In these days of information technology, why do senior civil servants need to be located in expensive real estate in Whitehall? Will my right hon. Friend consider relocating the Treasury to, for example, Bolton?

Mr. Luce: It may be best to keep my views to myself. It is for political heads of Departments to determine whether their operational requirements mean that they can ask civil servants to move to other parts of the country. The dispersal policy has not yet quite been completed, and involves dispersing 5,900 civil servants to other parts of the country.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister agree with the civil service unions that an increase in the number of VAT officers would lead to a net increase in the amount of VAT received by the Treasury?

Mr. Luce: I think that I shall leave my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer that question.

Dr. McDonald: Will the Minister arrange to meet the Civil Service unions about the ban on civil servants giving information to Members of Parliament in Select Committees? Is he aware that the ban can work only if Ministers are truthful to Select Committees and if Government Ministers do not name civil servants publicly? Is the Minister further aware that civil servants are well able to give a good account of themselves, if required to do so, particularly in the context of a proper code of ethics?

Mr. Luce: As far as I am aware that matter can be debated fully on Wednesday, in the context of the Government's reply to the Select Committee on the Westland issue. It is agreed that the job of Select Committees is to inquire into a Department's expenditure, administration and policy, but on the strict question of an individual civil servant's conduct, the civil servant is accountable to his permanent secretary and ultimately to the Minister, and it is the latter who is accountable to the House.

Artificial Limbs (Supply)

Mr. Frank Dobson: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the effects on the supply and fitting of artificial limbs of the "lock-out" at J E Hanger and Company Ltd.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. John Major): The House will know that 300 workers usually engaged in the manufacture and repair of artificial limbs at J E Hanger works at. Roehampton have been in dispute with their management since 15 September. The limbs manufactured at Roehampton are for fitting at Department of Health and Social Security artificial limb and appliance centres. The dispute is at present confined to bench hands at the Hanger Roehampton factory, and has not spread elsewhere.
The Government's concern throughout the dispute has been to safeguard the welfare of patients. We have sought to make arrangements to ensure that no amputee is left immobile. As a result, the effect of this dispute on patients thus far has been small — although I am acutely conscious of the difficulties caused to a small number of individuals.
There are some 3,000 prosthetic appointments each week at artificial limb and appliance centres: by the end of last week some 58 patient had had their appointments postponed because their limbs could not be supplied in time. In these cases we are arranging with the company for the limbs to be supplied urgently and are making fresh appointments for the patients as soon as possible. In order to avoid any wider disruption to the service, arrangements are being made, where necessary, for the work to be carried out elsewhere. We are taking particular care in the case of primary patients, who have recently undergone their amputations.
In view of the great importance of patient care, I have asked for a report each day on the emerging situation during this dispute. However, I must stress that the great bulk of the artificial limb and appliance service is not affected by the dispute, and I am particularly keen that patients who need attention should not hesitate to contact their local centre in the usual way.
I must emphasise that the Government are not a party to this dispute. It is a dispute between management and a part of its work force; it is a matter for negotiation between them. Both sides are aware that the services of ACAS remain available, and I believe that both sides should be prepared to involve ACAS forthwith.

Mr. Dobson: In view of the quite unsatisfactory statement by the Minister, I should like to ask again why the Government have not taken more vigorous action to protect the interests of National Health Service patients who rely on the work carried out by J E Hanger. Why have I not yet received a reply to my letter of 8 October to the Secretary of State? The Minister said that he had asked for daily reports. When did he start to do that? Will he stop saying that this matter does not affect patients? The centre used to produce 100 new or adjusted limbs per day, and the dispute has been going on since 16 September. The DHSS press office and the Minister have acknowledged that more than 50 people have been affected, but Baroness Trumpington said as recently as 17 October in the other place:

We do not envisage any amputee being left immobile as a result of the J. E. Hanger dispute."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 17 October 1986, Vol. 480, c 1024.]
Perhaps the Prime Minister, to whom a copy of my letter was sent, could have drawn the attention of the Baroness and of the Minister to the plight of one of my constituents, Mr. Rob Dickson, who has only one leg. He is suffering from bleeding and soreness and extreme discomfort in the stump of his missing leg. He flaked out and had to be taken to the Royal Free hospital to be resuscitated. Mr. Dickson is still in hospital.
Does the Minister not accept that one of the reasons for this industrial dispute is that the new owners, unlike the previous ones, are interested only in profits? I should tell the Minister that the work force has been sacked. The new owners are responding to the Government's encouragement of macho Murdoch style management by sacking staff to gain financial and industrial advantages.
Will the Minister tell us whether the offer that this dedicated work force of 300 skilled staff received last week from the management was reasonable? Does he support it? Is it right that the management offered to take hack only 80 workers and to give miserly compensation of about £2,000 to the rest, some of whom had worked for the company for 40 years? Does the Minister accept that that offer was rejected by the work force by 238 votes to two? Does he accept that the DHSS and Employment Ministers are not doing what they ought to do in a proper effort to resolve this dispute? Their activities are characterised by the attitude of Pontius Pilate. They should do their job properly and protect the interests of people who are suffering because they are not able to get the limbs to which they are entitled.

Mr. Major: If there is a top, it is clear that the hon. Gentleman has gone well over it yet again.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the dispute and about the offer to the work force. These are matters for the management and staff, and it would not be helpful, nor would it be in the interests of finding a solution, if I were to express views on them, and however pressed I have no intention of doing so. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about vigorous action. In my statement I set out clearly the parameters of the action.
The hon. Gentleman might have said that of the 14,300 attendances each month over the period of this dispute, thus far I am aware of only 58 postponed appointments. I am acutely aware of the difficulties caused to those 58 people, and in that context I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) in whose constituency Roehampton is located. He has made repeated representations to me about this dispute and has voiced his anxiety about patient care.
We have identified, and are identifying, patients whose appointments have been delayed. We are arranging fresh appointments for them and, as I said in my statemen t, we are seeking to arrange for the alternative manufacture of limbs where that is necessary. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) must permit me to answer the questions that he asked, and be prepared to listen to the answers. Daily reports have been made available to the Department since the middle or last week, and will continue to be made available for some considerable time, so that we may monitor the effect of this dispute.
I was sorry to hear of the particular difficulties faced by the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Mr. Dickson, and if


the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to give me details I shall endeavour to have the matter examined without any further delay.
It is our wish to see this dispute ended but, in our judgment, it is not likely to be ended by injudicious interference by Ministers. Nevertheless, the services of ACAS are available to both participants.

Mr. Roger Sims: The House will appreciate the position of my hon. Friend the Minister and will be grateful for the report that he has given us. He said that in certain cases other suppliers were being used. Will he assure us that he will use other suppliers in any circumstances where this will help to solve the problems that the dispute has precipitated?

Mr. Major: My prime concern is patient care. I can assure my hon. Friend that wherever that is possible it will be done.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister says that he is not responsible and so will not interfere in the dispute caused by the decision of Hanger to pay off these men. He, together with other Ministers, is responsible for the supply of legs, so he has responsibility for awarding contracts. The Minister will know that there are difficulties with contracts, not only in this area, but in Britain generally. He cannot say that he is not responsible. He should take a far greater interest in ensuring that the dispute is resolved.

Mr. Major: I draw a clear distinction between not being responsible for settling the dispute, which is between management and the work force, and the responsibility, which I acknowledge, of seeking to ensure an adequate supply of limbs to those in need. In my statement and answers to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) I set out clearly the action that we are taking to ensure the supply of limbs. We shall continue to take that action, for we share the hon. Gentlemens' concern about it.

Mr. John Powley: Does my hon. Friend agree that any industrial action of this nature is regrettable, particularly considering the harm and possible danger to those who are in receipt of artificial limbs? Does he agree that both parties should make greater efforts to resolve their differences, for the sake of those whom they serve?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend makes his points with great clarity. My unwillingness to become involved in the dispute is matched by my unwillingness to cast blame in either direction. I share my hon. Friend's concern that the people of primary importance are those who are waiting for artificial limbs.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the Minister accept that many hon. Members believe that the Government are responsible for the incidents at Roehampton, where management has sacked summarily a work force of 300? Is it not a fact that during the past seven years this Administration have exchanged consultation and conciliation in industrial relations for confrontation and submission? The Government are responsible for what is happening.

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are supremely irrelevant, even by his high standards of irrelevance. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would blame the Government if it rained. It is not the Government's fault that the dispute has occurred and I refuse to accept the blame for it.

Mr. Ian Gow: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, but is it not the case that the Government are greatly involved, in that National Health Service patients, and the NHS itself, are important customers of this company? Does my hon. Friend remember the remarks made by my hon. and noble Friend in another place 10 days ago, when she said that the Government had, indeed, inquired of Hanger management
orally and in writing what action is being taken to maintain supply.
My noble Friend told another place on that occasion:
The company has refused to reply … to either approach."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 October 1986; Vol. 480, c. 1023.]
Will my hon. Friend redouble his efforts to bring about a sensible solution to the problem?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend has correctly stated the remarks of our noble Friend in another place. I take to heart the injunction that he has laid on us and I will seek to do that.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On the question of delays in helping limbless people, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spoke, is the Minister aware that there is now urgent need for a definitive statement on the Government's response to the recommendations of the McColl report on artificial limb and appliance services?
This dispute, which some regard as not wholly unrelated to delays in dealing with the McColl recommendations, makes the need for a definitive statement all the more urgent. My hon. Friend raised a very distressing case. Is the Minister aware that I have a letter from a woman—a limbless young mother who has visited an artificial limb and appliance centre 23 times this year alone—which has been given to me by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and which I am authorised to pass to the Minister? Will he give it immediate attention and say now when and how the Government will act?

Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman touches on an exceedingly important point when he refers to the McColl report. I am urgently studying its recommendations, together with the comments made on it, not least by the Royal College of Physicians in its report on physical disability. I shall endeavour to produce conclusions and proposals for action as soon as possible and shall naturally keep the House informed as soon as conclusions are reached.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I shall certainly examine the case without delay.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order later.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the intervention by Ministers in the financing of the Channel tunnel project.
Since the House rose on Friday afternoon it has become widely known that the Eurotunnel consortium is in a state of shambles, having failed yet again to meet its twice-postponed deadline for raising the first £206 million of equity for the £5 billion Channel tunnel project. Although the Government have always insisted that the financing of the Channel tunnel is a private sector matter which must be decided solely by market forces operating at arm's length from the Government, weekend press reports in several newspapers have revealed what appears to be an extraordinary change in that policy. In particular, it is reported that Ministers and their officials have intervened with the Bank of England and with various financial institutions, including the pension funds of British Rail and the British Steel Corporation, putting pressure on the managers of those funds to make a last-minute subscription to the Eurotunnel share placing.
If those press reports are true, I must suggest that such ministerial intervention is unconstitutional and improper. Fund managers have a fiduciary duty to safeguard the interests of their pensioners; they have no duty to save Ministers from political embarrassment or Eurotunnel from financial collapse.
The House also needs to be told whether the allegations that Ministers have intervened to bring about boardroom changes at Eurotunnel are true and whether it is true, as reported, that the Government are preparing a contingency plan to subscribe taxpayers' money to shore up the Eurotunnel placing.
Whatever may be the meaning of all these boardroom and ministerial shenanigans, the fact of the matter is that the Channel tunnel project is fast becoming a discredited and busted flush. Eurotunnel's financial terms have rightly been boycotted by most British investment institutions, and some of the French backers are getting cold feet, too.
The House and the country are owed an early debate or at least an early Government statement. Best of all, the project deserves an early funeral.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the intervention by Ministers in the financing of the Channel tunnel project.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said. As he well knows, my only duty when considering an application under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether it should take precedence over the business already set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that the matter that he has raised meets all the criteria laid down in the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BBC (Court Case)

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope for the same treatment for my point of order as was afforded to the right lion. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) when he raised a point of order from the Government Dispatch Box on Thursday.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on Thursday, following my Standing Order No. 10 application on
the need for an inquiry into evidence of interference with witnesses in the case of Hamilton and Howarth v. the BBC" —[Official Report 23 October 1986; Vol. 102, c. 1307.]
the right hon. Member for Chingford intervened at the Dispatch Box to inform the House that he would not use parliamentary privilege to reply, but would answer outside the House without the protection of privilege, thus, by implication, inviting me to act similarly.
You will recognise, Mr. Speaker, that I have not been able to take that course because there is a danger of a gagging writ being served upon me, with the effect that Parliament would be silenced and be unable to debate the question of illegal interference with witnesses, under our own sub judice rules.
The decision by the chairman of the Conservative party not to make a statement was a deliberate ploy to avoid placing himself in contempt of the House by misleading the House in a personal statement. The precedents for that are set out in "Erskine May", chapter 10.
In so far as you allowed, by implication, the right hon. Member for Chingford, on a point of order, to challenge me to repeat my assertions outside the House, may be similarly treated? May I be allowed the right to ask the right hon. Member for Chingford to repeat his statement, made outside the House last week, inside the House this week, from the Dispatch Box? Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat in particular that part of his statement where he emphatically and vigorously denied to the press and the media generally that David Mitchell, head of the Conservative Central Office legal department, had spoken to potential witnesses after 6 February, when the legal action was initiated, and when the Members of Parliament concerned had issued the writs?
My evidence is that Mr. Mitchell spoke to potential witnesses, knowing them to be potential witnesses, on 22 February and thereafter. I challenge the chairman of the Conservative party to repeat his assertions at the Dispatch Box in a statement that is subject to the normal rules of the House. If he refuses, the country will know that a conspiracy of silence is being engineered by senior figures to hide the truth from Parliament.
We also need to know which people —

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going far beyond the point of order. I have allowed him indulgence so far. Shall I deal with the matter now?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Just one thing more, Mr. Speaker. We also need to know which people listed in the internal memo submitted to the BBC's board of management—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that, but it is not a matter for me. I think that I can now deal with the matter. Whether the chairman of the Tory party comes to the Dispatch Box to answer these allegations is not a matter for me. I cannot rule on that.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had hoped to point out that as many as 17 out of 20 witnesses may have been persuaded to withdraw—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will have his turn. He can raise his own point of order. We are put in a particularly difficult position in that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster answers questions for only five minutes every six parliamentary weeks. He last answered questions on 30 June, almost four months ago, and is next due to answer questions two weeks into the new Session a month away.
I have checked with the Table Office, and I am assured that even if hon Members try to table questions on the right hon. Gentleman's functions as chairman of the Conservative party, the Table Office, for proper reasons, would have to reject them. Yet on Thursday the same Chancellor of the Duchy, knowing in advance the nature of the Standing Order No. 10 application, came to the House prepared. He knew that a point would be made about his role as chairman of the Conservative party. He could have gone on to the Back Benches in his private role and raised a point of order, like any other hon. Member. Instead, he calculatedly chose to go to the Dispatch Box in his role as a Cabinet Minister to raise a point of order relating to his responsibilities as chairman of the Conservative party. He made a virtue of the fact that any statement would be made outside the House.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: It is a virtue.

Mr. Williams: If it is a virtue, that implies that he had the option of making a statement within the House. He rejected that option. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has helped me considerably.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is true that the Chancellor of the Duchy had that option, but that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Williams: I am coming to the key point. As the Prime Minister, in the Government's reply on Westland, said that Ministers were answerable to this House for those who serve them; as the right hon. Gentleman, as a Cabinet Minister, is head of the Conservative Central Office and those who work there serve him; as the right hon. Gentleman, as Chancellor of the Duchy, is not due to answer parliamentary questions for another month; and as, even then, we will not be able to table questions to him in either oral or written form, can you tell us, Mr. Speaker, whether the right hon. Gentleman abused his position on

Thursday by coming to the Dispatch Box and answering as chairman of the Conservative party, and whether he is abusing his position now by again refusing to come to the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a shadow Minister and he knows that there are many opportunities and ways to raise these matters. They are not matters for me.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. I have been very patient with the hon. Gentleman in allowing him to raise a matter that was not a point of order for me. I cannot add to my answer.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order I am not taking the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a separate point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking it.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Malone.]

Point of Order

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I have said, I have given the hon. Gentleman considerable indulgence this afternoon in allowing him to raise a matter which, quite frankly, he knows is not a point of order for me. I cannot help him further on this matter. He is seeking to make a political point through me, and I think that the whole House would deprecate that.

Opposition Day

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2ND PART]

Government Regional Policy

Mr. Donald Stewart: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for its total lack of concern for Scotland and Wales as demonstrated by its failure to provide effective regional economic policies; notes the devastating implications of the European Regional Development Fund report on the United Kingdom Regional Development Programme 1986–90; and calls for a fundamental re-think of Government policy towards economic regeneration to provide real and permanent jobs within reach of all the peoples of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Stewart: There can be no doubt that United Kingdom regional economic policy has, to a large extent, failed in its purpose — which was to equalise employment chances among the regions and nations of the United Kingdom, to spread industrial development and to help decentralise the economy.
Even when the policy was at its strongest and most effective in the 1970s, it had only partially succeeded in its task. During the period 1945 to 1970 Scotland benefited the least of all the economic planning regions in terms of net employment gain attributable to the effects of regional policy. I shall refer later to the efficacy of that policy and what I consider should have been done.
For the benefit of those in the least depressed parts of the United Kingdom who have never needed the help of a regional policy, nor are ever likely to, I shall give a fairly brief history of its development. It was born back in the 1930s, but before the second world war there were only a few special areas — west-central Scotland, south-east Wales and small parts of the north of England. In the postwar period the special areas were renamed development areas. The then Board of Trade was empowered with the task of building factories in the areas providing public services, reclaiming derelict land and disbursing loans and grants.
The year 1948 saw the birth of industrial development certificates, which enabled the Government to control the location of new investment and factories. The new development areas were extended in the same year to include other parts of Scotland, Wales, the north of England and Northern Ireland. In 1960 the old development areas were abolished and new development districts created, giving a wider coverage of Scotland and Wales and, for the first time, parts of Devon and Cornwall.
From this point on, industrial development certificates were strictly controlled, with strong preference being shown for companies locating in the disadvantaged assisted areas. In 1967 regional employment premium and regional development grants were introduced. The former was a straight payroll subsidy for manufacturing firms in the assisted areas. In the previous year new development areas were created, covering virtually the whole of Scotland and Wales and large parts of the north of England.
Between 1970 and 1975 the geographical coverage of regional assistance remained virtually unchanged. This was probably the peak period of regional policy. Special development areas within development areas were extended. Intermediate areas were established; and regional development grants, automatic capital grants for firms locating in the assisted areas, were born. They were paid at the rate of 22 per cent. in special development areas, 20 per cent. in development areas and, in intermediate areas, 20 per cent. for buildings. Regional selective assistance continued and was available to companies in any area, at the Government's discretion. With all those powers in force, regional economic policy was at its strongest.
The dismantling of the system began in 1976, when the Labour party suddenly and summarily abolished the regional employment premium. This caused great consternation in industry in Wales, Scotland and other assisted areas. At a stroke, regional aid in Scotland was slashed by £78 million. Also in the mid-1970s, the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency were established. By wielding political power in 1974, in voting for the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, the electors in Scotland and Wales enabled our two parties to put on the pressure, to the advantage of the two nations. I shall say more about the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. My colleagues in Plaid Cymru will no doubt wish to talk about the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Mid-Wales.
The later 1970s saw the beginning of greater Government concern about the state of inner cities, particularly London and Birmingham. In years to come they were to claim the attention of the Government, to the disadvantage of regional policy. Many detrimental changes took place between 1979 and the present. These began with the announcement by the then Secretary of State for Industry, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), of a three-year programme of descheduling of assisted areas. The requirement of industrial development certificates was abolished in 1982, after having been steadily weakened since 1975. By August 1982 most of the north-east of Scotland had been removed from development area status, as were Lothian and the Borders. Most of mid-Wales was also descheduled.
In November 1984 the most recent round of substantial changes took place. The special development areas were completely abolished. Only development areas retain the automatic right to regional development grants at a lower rate of 15 per cent. of capital expenditure. Intermediate areas qualified only for selective grants.
A particular worrying aspect is that regional development grants are no longer available in development areas for replacement investment. Many of the incoming firms established in Scotland in the 1960s and early 1970s require substantial new investment. With the withdrawal of RDGs, many firms may choose to move to a new location, probably outside Scotland, and in a development area so that they can pick up a better deal.
In the 1984 review of policy large parts of Scotland were completely descheduled. Apart from the obvious loss of United Kingdom Government grants, an additional worrying factor is that these areas are no longer eligible for many European Community development grants. That is


a double blow in many parts of the Highlands, Grampian, Lothian, Tayside, Central and the Borders. Scotland bore 30 per cent. of the cut in regional aid spending.
Although regional policy over the years has been inadequate in many respects, it provided a valuable and not inconsiderable boost to many parts of the country. Economists working for the Department of Trade and Industry reckoned that between 1960 and 1981 regional policy was responsible for creating some 600,000 jobs in assisted areas. Some 400,000 positions were still in existence by 1981, although the recession will have reduced that total. Even so, the figures that I have quoted do not take into account any secondary or multiplier effect in creating jobs in service industries in the assisted areas.
This situation is in no way a substitute for Scotland and Wales having the power to use their own resources and skills within an autonomous economic framework and to embark on policies for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the rich south of England. However, it has helped to stem a tide of emigration, unemployment and poverty, which would have been worse without regional economic assistance.
That regional policy in under attack is plain for all to see. The latest changes, in 1984, carried on a series of cuts and expenditure that began some time ago, in 1976. In constant price terms 1975–76 was the peak year for spending on regional preferential assistance of all kinds. First came the Labour cuts in 1976, 1977 and 1978. Spending then recovered for three or four years, but resumed a downward trend in more recent years. In cash terms, spending in 1982–83 was £956 million in Britain. This was cut to £640 million in 1983–84 and £615 million in 1984–85. Spending in Scotland shows the same downward trend from £369 million in 1982–83 to £227 million in 1983–84 and £184 million in 1984–85. There was a slight rise in the year 1985–86, to £199 million. However, in real terms, the level of regional aid now paid to both Scotland and Wales is far below the value of what was paid in previous years. In the case of Scotland, the real value of aid is only about 50 per cent. of the 1975–86 payment. It is also the case that Scotland's share of regional development grant fell from 44·1 per cent. in 1982–83 to 32 per cent. in 1984–85.
On almost any aspect, Scotland and Wales, which enjoyed a reasonably supportive regional aid system 10 years ago, have been relegated into the second division as unemployment and inner city problems have hit the midlands and south-east of England. Money has been diverted to these areas. The work of the Location of Offices Bureau in persuading firms to move their headquarters out of London has been suspended. Over the past few years the south-east region has been able to consolidate its dominance in corporate control and research and development activities.
Scotland has also lost on financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act. This category of payment is made to certain sectors of industry, and the high-tech and micro-electronic industries have been among the main beneficiaries. The cumulative payments under section 8, up to March 1985, have been: Wales £25 million, Scotland £48 million, England £474 million. The Thames valley and the south-east region have won again, and section 8 is the fastest growing block of regional assistance.
The Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency are well known, but how many know that there is a development agency in England as well? The English Industrial Estates Corporation, in its own words, is
the largest developer and manager of industrial and commercial property in England. Our service doesn't end when the building does. We do everything that we can to help businesses in our care to flourish and grow.
If hon. Members who represent English constituencies contribute to the debate, I hope that they will not adopt the old, worn-out theme that runs, "The Scots and the Welsh have development agencies, why cannot England have one as well?". If any English Members have listened to the pronouncement of the Scottish sector of the Scottish economy, they might be forgiven for thinking that everything is coming up roses, or thistles in Scotland and daffodils in Wales. Unfortunately, that is not the position. It would be nearer the truth to say that any slight improvement in the relative performance of the Scottish economy is due to the deterioration in England's economy.
The Scottish economy is far from healthy. The same can be said of the economy in Wales, and I know that my hon. Friends from Plaid Cymru will want to deal with that. For the first two quarters of 1986 there were large increases in redundancies in Scotland, while the Great Britain figure remained stable. Output, when set against the 1980 base of 100, is only 104, the same level as that which prevailed in 1976. Net emigration has averaged 15,000 a year from Scotland since the start of the decade. The latest figures tell us that hard-core unemployment is still on the increase. Scotland and Northern Ireland are the only two regions to share that deplorable trend. Weekly earnings have fallen behind the Great Britain average after a few years of parity. Even oil-related employment is on the decline.
In December 1982 the Cambridge Economic Policy Review Group forecast regional unemployment figures by 1990, assuming the current economic policy was maintained. It estimated that in Wales 22 per cent. Would be unemployed, with over 20 per cent. in Scotland. Given present trends, it does not appear that it will be far wrong. I cannot begin to comprehend the Government's thinking behind the destruction of regional policy. I can only guess that the Government know where their support lies, which is in the midlands and the south-east of England, and that that is where they intend to concentrate their attention. Judged by any rational, economic or social standard, there is a crying need for more, not less, regional policy.
Recently, the Fraser of Allander Institute, a body which is engaged in economic research and forecasting in Scotland, stated:
The catalogue of spatial, economic and industrial problems in Scotland is extensive. Shipbuilding on Tyneside, social deprivation in Glasgow, rural unemployment in the highlands and islands, skewed spatial distribution of oil-related employment are all affecting the health of the Scottish economy.
Gross regional disparities exist in the United Kingdom and these have been highlighted by recession. In a special report in 1983 the Regional Studies Association said:
It is clear that … the evidence supports the identification of a basic regional dualism in the United Kingdom. This consists essentially of a 'greater south-east zone of relative economic buoyancy and most of the rest of the country characterised in general by economic debility and decline'.


More recently, a document entitled "United Kingdom Regional Development Programme 1986–90" grabbed the headlines. This is the first time that the House has debated regional affairs with a knowledge of what was stated in that document. It was prepared for and published by the European regional development fund. One of the most damning sets of statistics of the 17-volume report is contained in the introduction. Of the poorer regions identified by the European Community within the Community, over one third are in the United Kingdom. The "index of regional disadvantage" that is used by the Community includes in the top 10 disadvantaged areas Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway. Gwent, mid-South Wales and Glamorgan appear in the next 10. There are four other Welsh counties in the next 10, and the regions of the Borders, Central Fife, Lothian and Tayside are in the following 10. Of the worst 40 deprived areas, the United Kingdom has 28, 14 of which are in Wales or Scotland. These are staggering and sobering figures which demonstrate how far we have fallen behind our European neighbours in our standard of living.
In another European Community ranking that is included in the report, employment levels are used as the criteria. Eleven of the worst 20 regions are in the United Kingdom, and five of them are in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I know that his figures are accurate, but does he agree that one of the areas that suffers most is Merseyside? That is why some of us constantly raise Merseyside issues in the House.

Mr. Stewart: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Merseyside's problems are well known, and in my introduction I said that one of the disadvantaged areas is the north of England. There is no doubt about that. There is no doubt, too, that the hon. Gentleman's argument is valid.
The EC report observes the position of the disadvantaged regions and points out that, while industrial structure and peripherality will continue to contribute to the problem, recent research has identified other causes of continuing disparity. Research and development are concentrated in the south of England, and Scotland and Wales are largely dependent on the south for innovation. Scotland and Wales have a low proportion of managerial and professional jobs and a high proportion of semiskilled or unskilled workers.
The report considers the various regions within Scotland and Wales, and almost all emerge with a similarly depressing prospect. Overall, in Scotland and Wales, unemployment will remain at about the present levels in 1990. Although there are opportunities for expansion in both countries in high technology and the service sector, the good points cannot outweigh the sheer scale of job losses in traditional manufacturing industries such as coal, steel, shipbuilding and engineering. The document from the European Community, which was not intended to be read by anyone other than Ministers, civil servants and European Commissioners, holds out little hope of improvement in the disastrous levels of unemployment in the two nations of Wales and Scotland. The only way to effect improvement is to have a complete change in economic regional policy and thinking.
Attention must be paid to the fact that too many of our factories in Scotland and Wales are branch plants of large

foreign-owned multinationals. The figures for Scotland show that in recent years foreign-owned firms were responsible for 38 per cent. of net capital investment. They were responsible for 20 per cent. of manufacturing output in Scotland. In the micro-electronics sector, 40 per cent. of firms in Scotland are owned by United States organisations, while a further 40 per cent. are English owned.
The old problem of the lack of indigenous control and development has reared its head again, with the concomitant disadvantages of a lack of managerial and research and development work. Instead, there is a concentration on assembly-line jobs. Forget the bluff, optimistic noises that emanate from the Scottish Office on the subject of the "recovery in Scotland". That recovery is not taking place. Industries are under-resourced and the unemployment problem is increasing. Our infrastructure is crying out for investment and replacement. Our young people search — mostly in vain — for worthwhile opportunities. Many give up hope and leave the country of their birth. The same can be said of Wales. If anything, the ERDF report to which I have referred paints a rather bleaker outlook for the Welsh economy.
It is against that background that the Government have sought to destroy regional policy and to starve Scotland, Wales and the northern regions of England of investment and the chance of employment and a better future. The Conservatives may continue in power until after the next election, but they will do so only on the strength of support from middle and southern England. At consecutive elections, Scotland and Wales have rejected the Government and their policies. The electorate put the Conservatives in power. The tide has turned in Wales and Scotland and the Government will soon find that people no longer wish to be part of the British state, its political system and its economic tragedy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
recognised the efforts and achievements of Her Majesty's Government in stimulating the economies of Scotland and Wales; welcomes the submission to the European Commission of the United Kingdom Regional Development Programme for 1986–90 as the basis for maximising European Regional Development Fund assistance to the United Kingdom; notes the references in that document to the significant steps being taken by the Government to replace jobs lost in the assisted areas and to strengthen the infrastructure of such areas; and endorses the Government's determination to tackle the problems of all parts of the United Kingdom by means of sustained and effective economic and regional policies.".
I am sure that I would have the support of the whole House in saying how sorry we were to learn of the accident that befell the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) at the weekend. He was to have spoken in this debate on behalf of the Opposition. We wish him a speedy recovery.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) on getting to the House in time for today's debate, despite what seems to me to be the only discernible policy of a regional nature that the Scottish National party has adopted—to boycott British Airways. But even the right hon. Gentleman's charm and personal qualities cannot disguise the inherently unsavoury nature of the motion that his party has tabled for this afternoon's


debate. Here we see the distasteful spectacle of the two separatist parties, from Scotland and Wales, which want to break up the United Kingdom and which repeatedly claim that they would be better off on their own, whingeing that they are not given enough out of the United Kingdom's policies. I hope that the House will understand if I concentrate my remarks primarily upon the Scottish aspects of the motion, allowing the Under-Secretary of State for Wales — my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts) — to deal with the Welsh side.
There will, I feel sure, be many parallels between the two countries, not least in the great difficulty we have in establishing what the nationalist parties actually stand for. Certainly, there was no guidance in the speech of the right hon. Member for Western Isles. We are falling back on the other half of his parliamentary party, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) who plays the son to his Steptoe. We do find a specific shopping list, although we have to go back to The Scotsman of 27 November 1984 to find it in the "Recipe for Scots Recovery."
It seems that the nationalist parties want £170 million set aside for the budgets of the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I have news for hon. Members. That is almost exactly what the present budgets of those bodies now add up to—both substantially increased in real terms since this Government came to office. Then they want £30 million for guaranteed investment in the steel industry. Bob Scholey must have been reading his copy of The Scotsman.
In another document there is an eight-point plan called "Scotland can work", in which its authors, on the one hand, call for a programme of public works, expanded industrial aid, a restructuring fund for industry, higher pensions, social security benefits and overseas aid —perhaps to England—and, on the other hand, call for a cut in VAT, income tax, national insurance contributions, petrol duty and vehicle excise duty.
Perhaps Scotland can work, but clearly the SNP cannot add. Perhaps someone should tell the party what happened to the price of oil. It will not know, because last June, when the Scottish Grand Committee had an important debate on the oil industry in Scotland, so far as I can gather SNP Members were not even there. I suppose that they boycotted that Committee, just as they boycotted the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, even with the cut in oil prices, the revenue available to the Treasury would be in excess of £4 billion? Considering the size of Scotland, would that not enable us to carry out any of the plans mentioned?

Mr. Lang: As over the past 10, 15 or 20 years, the hon. Gentleman lives in a pie-in-the-sky world in which he assumes that all oil revenues derived from the North sea would automatically fall to an independent Scotland. I am glad to say that we have the views of the hon. Member for Dundee, East on regional policy from the same report in The Scotsman. It said that the SNP
favours reform of the present range of regional grants"—
we have now done that—
but argues that the whole of Scotland should be eligible for these in some form or other.

That is precisely the kind of blanket, everyone-gets-aprize, Socialist type of policy that characterises the lurch to the Left that the nationalists have taken in recent years. But it is not a regional policy, unless of course the hon. Member for Dundee, East regards Scotland as a region. Perhaps he was on stronger ground when, over the weekend, he predicted a Conservative victory in the next general election.
The essence of regional policy is the selection for special help of areas that are relatively disadvantaged. Before I turn to our regional policy in more detail, let me deal more broadly with the monstrous canard, put about by nationalists and Socialists alike, that Scotland does not get its full share of central Government expenditure. It simply is not true.
Identifiable public expenditure per head of the Scottish population is 25 per cent. higher than that in England—£2,210, compared with £1,761 — while the figure in Wales is £1,927. It is right that that should be so because of the special needs and geographical circumstances of our two countries. This can be seen in almost every departmental programme: on housing £126·50 per head in Scotland and £67·40 in England; on education, £392 compared with £284. On health and social services the figure is £428 compared with £336. In local government the current expenditure provision for next year amounts to £638 per head against £535 in England. Our rate support grant stands at 56 per cent. The rate for England is 46 per cent.
So, too, in regional policy the Government's concern for Scotland's special needs is recognised. With around one tenth of the British population, we have almost one third of those who qualify for regional aid. That is a higher proportion than before the 1984 changes. It is twice the British average and it includes 65 per cent. of the Scottish work force.
Last year, regional aid in Scotland through development grants and selective assistance amounted to almost £160 million—over 30 per cent. of the total in Great Britain — compared with only 21 per cent. when we came to office in 1979. That £160 million was equivalent to £62·48 per head in Scotland, as against £19·21 in the rest of Britain. In other words, taxpayers in other parts of the United Kingdom are, along with Scottish taxpayers, helping to support many Scottish industries.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Minister will be aware that his Department is considering a request from the Highlands and Islands Development Board for full upgrading to development status for the Invergordon area, which status it had prior to the 1984 review. There is clear evidence that investment is being lost to other parts of the country or abroad because of the failure to have such advantageous rates. I appreciate the fact that the Minister cannot give a definitive response today, but will he confirm that his Department will look at the matter as sympathetically, supportively and quickly as possible?

Mr. Lang: I certainly recognise that there are problems in the lnvergordon area, but I can hold out no great hope for the hon. Gentleman that assisted area status boundaries are being reconsidered. I draw to his attention the considerable and growing success of the enterprise zone in Invergordon. There were nearly 100 jobs a year or


so ago, 200 by the turn of the year, and now there are about 300. The hon. Gentleman can derive considerable satisfaction from that.
I believe, and the Government believe, that it is right, given our problems, that other parts of the United Kingdom should help Scottish industries. But against figures of the kind that I have given, I do not know how the nationalists have the gall to raise this subject for debate.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles gave the impression that the Government no longer care about regional policy. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the figures that I have given show. We have made clear our commitment to regional policy on repeated occasions. We included it in our election manifesto; we emphasised it again in our White Paper on regional industrial development; and we are giving effective proof to it in a wide range of measures available for industry in the regions. It must be remembered, of course, that regional policy is not the main source of the Government's support for industry. More important is a stable economic base with low inflation, sound monetary policies and a favourable tax regime, better training and good industrial relations. We have achieved all those. But regional policy continues to have an important part to play.

Mr. Heffer: I come from an area of high unemployment. In fact the area had special development status provided through the efforts of my Government. Will the Minister explain to the House why, in areas like mine and the north-east, unemployment has increased? Is it not precisely because of the Government's failure to continue the previous regional policy?

Mr. Lang: I cannot accept the connection between the two aspects that the hon. Gentleman mentions. There is no provable link between the change in regional industrial policy and the rise in unemployment. Indeed, the development of job creation over the past three years has coincided with the changes in regional policy which we have pursued.
We believe that the present pattern of assisted areas is a fair reflection of the relative needs of different parts of the country. For example, in west central Scotland and parts of south Wales we have older industrial areas where employment in the traditional industries is in decline and where special efforts are needed to help the transition to a modern industrial economy. That is why those areas enjoy the highest level of assistance under our current policies. Other areas, where the need is less great but where help is still needed benefit from regional selective assistance and the value of that incentive should not be understated. The advantage of RSA is that it can be used flexibly and can be tailored to the needs of the individual project by phasing and timing grant instalments. It can ensure that the highest possible level of assistance is available under EEC rules for projects which offer substantial economic and employment benefits. Since May 1979 offers totalling £378 million have been made under RSA, creating or safeguarding over 140,000 jobs.
There are, of course, those areas that do not qualify for regional assistance at all. I know that that can be a source of grievance, particularly in places which had long been accustomed to the benefits of assisted area status. But it is important to remember what regional policy is designed to achieve. It is not a continuing subsidy and still less is

it an aid to which any one part of the country has a prescriptive right. Rather it is a means of helping particularly disadvantaged areas to overcome their particular difficulties relative to other parts of the country.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles referred to the reduction in expenditure on our present policy. The effectiveness of a policy should not be judged by the amount of money put into it, but rather by how efficiently that money is directed. If we were, for example, to quadruple expenditure, the policy certainly would not be four times more efficient. On the contrary, there would be massive problems of deadweight and job displacement, and the implications for higher taxation and inflation would be to undermine the steady growth and recovery of the economy that we have been achieving. The new regional development grants are linked to the creation of jobs specifically to ensure that large Government subsidies are no longer handed over to capital-intensive projects which cost a great deal of money but provide very few jobs and would probably have gone ahead anyway. I am sure everyone recognises the sense of what we did.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Is the Minister telling the House that, given the criteria he has laid down, he thinks that regional policy is succeeding?

Mr. Lang: I think that regional policy is succeeding in giving better value for money to the taxpayer and in directing help to the areas where it can be more productive in job creation.
Any scheme of incentives, however well designed, must be judged by how it works in practice. We now have two years' experience of the new policy, and clear evidence that it is working, helped no doubt by our decision to strengthen our "one-door" approach in Scotland with the transfer of the administration of regional development grants in Scotland from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Scottish Office. In Scotland alone, some 3,250 projects have been approved for regional development grant since the new scheme was introduced. That represents an investment of around £450 million leading to the creation of over 29,000 jobs.
As for the lurid predictions of doom and disaster with which the announcement of changes in the policy were greeted two years ago, it has not happened. Economic recovery has continued. New companies are springing up with a net increase of 1,400 in Scotland last year, and no fewer than 50,000 more Scots are in work than at the last election. Scotland continues to rise in the gross domestic product league table and now lies third, compared with eighth 15 years ago. Our output and productivity, particularly in manufacturing industry, continue to rise faster than in the rest of the United Kingdom and average Scottish male manual earnings are now second only to the south-east of England.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Since the hon. Gentleman is giving us a roll-call of statistics, how does he reconcile the progress that he has outlined to the House with the fact that the coal industry in Scotland has contracted at a greater rate and with a greater loss of jobs proportionately than any other place in Britain?

Mr. Lang: That makes my point for me. It is precisely because we have had to contend with such major structural changes and with the decline in and loss of jobs in so many


of our heavy industries that the net increase of 50,000 jobs, which means many more jobs being created than that figure suggests, reveals the success of our policy.
Scotland has an enviable reputation in the attraction of new inward investment and, indeed, in the five years that Locate in Scotland has been operating its one-door service for potential investors, planned investment totalling more than £1·9 billion has been won, bringing with it the prospect of more than 38,000 jobs, the majority of which are new jobs. Those jobs will replace the industry to which the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred. It has been a record of growing success — and it is continuing — in which our regional assistance programme has played an important role.
By securing this new investment in Scotland we achieve not just taxation benefits for the United Kingdom economy as a whole, but we secure access to the latest technology, opportunities for suppliers, improved management techniques, better employment opportunities and the creation of real jobs. We believe that we have a lot to offer and that we should play to our very real strengths in marketing Scotland.
No discussion of the Government's regional policy, particularly as it affects Scotland, can ignore the role of the Scottish Development Agency. It has proved an effective and flexible instrument in helping to improve the Scottish economy. That was confirmed by the recent review. Since 1975, the SDA has spent over £940 million and its budget this year is £136 million. Over the life of the SDA, and particularly since 1979, its resources have increased both in cash and real terms and the contribution made by the SDA in tapping Scotland's resources of inventiveness and awakening a new spirit of enterprise is of great importance.

Mr. John Maxton: Since the Minister is so concerned about the Scottish Development Agency and the work it does, why do the Government intend to cut its capital programme from £61·6 million in 1986–87 to £57·7 million in 1988–89? That does not seem to be much of a commitment to the SDA.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is being extremely selective in his use of figures. I have already pointed out that we have increased the budget of the SDA in real terms by a substantial amount. Its creative role in identifying new forms of public-private partnership and its imaginative approach to development programmes have borne fruit in such major projects as the development of the Scottish exhibition and conference centre and an integrated approach to the regeneration of areas such as Dundee and Leith. Its joint involvement with my Department in the Locate in Scotland operation has increased awareness throughout the world of Scotland's advantages as a site for internationally based advanced technology companies. Only lack of time prevents me from enlarging on the SDA's important and growing role in bringing help to rural areas. Suffice it to say that that is an aspect that I regard as important.
Another important source of regional aid derives from our membership of the European Community. For years the SNP was violently and bitterly opposed to our membership; now it tells us it is in favour of it. Perhaps one day it will get around to telling its own supporters.
Certainly Europe is good for Scotland. Over 40 per cent. of our exports go there and we benefit from grants and loans from the European Investment Bank, the European Coal and Steel Community, and the social fund. From that alone. Scotland's share of grants this year, at over £14 million, is the largest of all the parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Donald Stewart: rose—

Mr. Lang: I think that I can anticipate what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say.
Mr. Stewart: The point is that such grants have come on the judgment of the European Community to the most disadvantaged parts of the EEC area.
Mr. Lang: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was about to press me further on the case for the Western Isles to he included in the special priority category. That is something we have been pressing hard. In the meantime, I am glad to be able to comfort the right hon. Gentleman by saying that we have doubled the subsidy for the Caledonian-MacBrayne services, which amounts to a 30 per cent. increase in real terms. There has also been substantial capital expenditure on new vessels and new terminals.
There is also the European regional development fund from which Scotland has done particularly well, having received no less than a quarter of total United Kingdom allocations. The fund has been an extremely useful source of revenue for local and other public authorities and has helped to finance a variety of infrastructure projects.
An important breakthrough was made by the Scottish Office two years ago when ferry vessels serving the Highlands and Islands were accepted under the fund. And when a new ERDF regulation was introduced last year for programme finance, as opposed to project applications, we were quick to take advantage of the opportunities afforded. Already two programmes have been approved by the European Commission —one for Glasgow worth £68·2 million—the first such programme to be approved and one for Tayside worth £20·7 million.
It is against this background that our continuing success in securing a good — and a fair — deal for Scotland and for the United Kingdom as a whole is closely linked to the submission to the Commission of our regional development programme. The right hon. Member for Western Isles referred—as does this motion—to this programme. But in common with others, he misconstrued the contents of the document and its purpose.
It is first important to put the regional development programme into its proper context. The main ERDF regulation provides that:
Member states shall communicate Regional Development Programmes to the Commission and any amendinents to them in the case of regions and areas receiving aid eligible for assistance from the ERDF.
What this means is that all member states are required to demonstrate that project applications for assistance from the ERDF relate to the problems specified in the relevant regional development programme. The regional development programme is therefore geared to achieving successful bids for ERDF. Without a regional development programme, it would not be possible to secure ERDF help.
In view of the role of the programme, it must of course he a very comprehensive document. The total United


Kingdom submission for the period 1986 to 1990 runs to 17 volumes. The Scottish section alone is more than 200 pages in length. The programme is an extremely detailed analysis of the various regions of Scotland. It contains information on the economic and social situation, development objectives, measures for development, financial resources and implementation. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Is it true?"] The programme concentrates on both strengths and weaknesses alike. Indeed, without the latter, one would hardly expect to receive assistance from the European regional development fund, whose main objective is to correct regional imbalances throughout the European Community.
Against that background, it is particularly disturbing to see selective quotations in the national press which portray the programme as an indictment of current economic and regional policy. Nothing could be further from the truth and the Opposition know this.
The United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular, has benefited very considerably from the European regional development fund. Assistance of over £616 million has been won for Scotland since 1975. It is naive to believe that future ERDF support can be secured without some reference to the weaknesses and potential difficulties in the regions.
A particular point, which some hon. Members have overlooked, is that there is not a country within the European Community that does not want assistance for its less prosperous areas. Each country does so with the back-up of an appropriate regional development programme. There is not a single country among the 12 that would make a bid for ERDF aid by claiming nationwide prosperity.

Mr. Dick Douglas: The Minister has said that all countries in the Community submit programmes. Can he tell us of any other nation state which has made an assumption of such a poor economic performance as we have?

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) had read all 17 volumes of the report he would be aware that we do not submit a programme based on such poor assumptions. I had a look at the history of the ERDF programmes. Between 1975 and 1978 the Labour Government secured £64 million from the fund. Of course the fund was much smaller then. However, between 1979 and 1986 we have secured £552 million. When they submitted their programme, did the Labour Government include unemployment assumptions? No, they did not. The Commission wanted such assumptions. However, did the Labour Government fail to submit such assumptions because they did not know what the unemployment assumptions were or because they did know?
Of course, the regional development programme contains assumptions—but I would stress that these are assumptions, not forecasts. The assumptions, and they are the same assumptions as those contained in the public expenditure White Paper, project what could happen if nobody did anything about current problems. This does not mean, however, that the Government are not determined to take every measure practicable to boost the economy, or indeed that many external circumstances—such as oil prices—may not change to our advantage. On top of all the efforts being made to generate more work

from purely Scottish sources and the great success we have had in attracting overseas investment, we are determined to complement our own efforts with European help. It is vital that Scotland, and the United Kingdom generally, continues to get its fair share of European money and that is the purpose of all of our regional development programme.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The EEC report refers to a prediction of Scottish unemployment at a figure of 331,000 by 1990, assuming no radical change in Government policy before then. Was that the Government's prediction? If not, where did that figure come from? Does the Minister believe that the figure is accurate? If not, would he care to tell us now what his prediction for 1990 would be?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) cannot have been listening to me. The report contains no predictions and the Government have given no predictions. The Government do not forecast unemployment figures any more than the Labour Government forecast unemployment trends. The report contains assumptions and they are the same assumptions that have been made in the public expenditure White Paper and they are assumptions of what could happen if certain action was not taken.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Lang: The report is full of positive aspects, covering such promising growth areas as microelectronics, health care, biotechnology, food and timber processing, fish-farming and tourism, and of course our highly successful finance and banking sector. It is quite wrong to accept the ill-judged deceptions perpetrated by those who would present only doom and gloom by selective quotation, and it is disgraceful that the Labour party should seek to distort and undermine the balanced presentation of Scotland's case to the Commission.
Least of all is the Labour party qualified to criticise this Government's successful development of regional policy, or to call for more infrastructure spending. Yes, we have cut spending on industry under the Scottish block by 0·3 per cent. in the past three years in real terms, but we are getting better value for money. However, when we look at the same figures for the last three years of the Labour Government the figure is not 0·3 per cent. but 13 per cent.
It is almost exactly 10 years since that same Government slashed Scotland's regional aid programme by 40 per cent. overnight when they abolished regional employment premium. That was a loss of £60 million to Scottish industry — more than double that figure at today's prices. As if that was not enough, they slapped on a further burden of £200 million when they brought in the national insurance surcharge — Labour's tax on jobs. Those were two direct, vicious, panic-stricken assaults on Scottish industry—and Wales suffered the same fate—by a party that had lost control of events, two deliberate measures that destroyed thousands of Scottish jobs.
This Government have struggled consistently and with growing success to repair the damage and restore the economy. We know, because the former Labour Government proved it, that unemployment can be tackled only through the sound economic strategy which we are following. This includes keeping inflation down and encouraging enterprise. 1985 was the third successive year


of steady growth, low inflation, and growing numbers of jobs throughout the United Kingdom. It includes a strong and effective regional policy. The new policy we introduced, at a time of rapid structural change, is bringing new jobs and new hope to Scotland and Wales. Above all, it is helping to restructure the Scottish and Welsh economies on a broader base in a way which will enable them to play their full part in the regeneration of the United Kingdom. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject this absurd motion and to support the amendment.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I congratulate the Minister on his new office. His speech was persuasive except when he dealt with that impossible part of his brief relating to the application to the European regional development fund.
On that issue, no one expects the Government, when submitting an application for funds to ERDF or to anyone else, to present the weakest case. No one would expect the Government to roll out some of the more complacent speeches that we have heard from successive Secretaries of State for Scotland. At the same time, the Government must not lie. They must not pretend that they can say one thing to one audience and something else to another without both audiences hearing what is said. The Government must not behave like an opera singer bellowing away at the auditorium expecting a singer beside him not to hear him if he puts his hand over his mouth. We could not have expected the report to have remained confidential, and I do not expect for a moment that the Government thought that it would. I therefore thought that the Minister was trying to have it slightly both ways when he stressed that it was 17 volumes long and then accused the press of selective reporting. It would have been a little difficult for them to have printed all 17 volumes.
Many documents are now leaked. That is the contribution, if there be one, of the Xerox machine to the advance of civilisation. The Commission is less addicted even to attempted secrecy than the British Government. To circulate a document in the service of the Commission is to put it into the public domain. That has been the fact for some time, and there is nothing very wrong with it.
The Government have for once been caught out telling the truth. The truth is that, on present policies, with which the Government are determined to continue, there is no prospect of any significant reduction in unemployment until beyond the end of the decade. Their figures are quite precise. It is not just a projection, otherwise where does the 80,000 reduction come from? Such a figure is insignificant, however. Nor is there any prospect of a significant improvement in the circumstances of the worst hit regions. There is nothing shameful about the Government saying that that is the reality. What is shameful is indulging in the hypocrisy of pretending otherwise.
It is already abundantly and depressingly clear that the 1980s will be an incomparably worse decade for unemployment in Scotland and the rest of the country than were the 1930s. The attempt to half deny that there is a peculiar unemployment problem in Britain, especially, but not exclusively, in Scotland and Wales, produces some odd performances from Ministers.
The Secretary of State for Defence, when Secretary of State for Scotland, used to indulge in speeches of a bland complacency which were almost Panglossian. The present Secretary of State indulges in some odd intellectual contortions. Last Wednesday, he assured the House that Scotland has the highest percentage of employment in any comparable European country—63 per cent. as against 59 per cent. in Germany. Does he really believe that that figure is relevant? If so, what is he doing applying for regional aid? If the figure is valid, Strathclyde ought to be giving aid to Stuttgart, not the other way around. If he does not believe that the figures are relevent, why is he trying to throw sand in our eyes and those of the country?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The right hon. Gentleman does not need me to give the answer. He knows perfectly well that if far more women work or seek employment in the United Kingdom, that affects unemployment levels and makes straight comparison between Britain or Scotland and the continental countries invalid. A substantial proportion of people who seek employment in the United Kingdom would not seek it in continental countries because it is not as customary for women to work in those countries.

Mr. Jenkins: Of course. I am indeed aware that the factor involved is the stronger tradition of women working in Scotland and the United Kingdom. I am not sure of the comparison between Scotland and England as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not give those figures last Wednesday. The stronger tradition of Scottish women working has been accentuated by the excessive shift to service industry employment, which has been foolishly over-encouraged by the Government. That move has taken us out of line with France, Germany and Italy, let alone Japan. It leaves us in line only with the United States, which can afford it. We cannot. The United States produces a mammoth balance of payments deficit which can be financed only because the dollar is not like other currencies.
I was interested to see that the Secretary of State rejected an egregious leading question from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) on Wednesday. He spoke of an obsession with manufacturing industry which we must correct. He reverses the case. We have had a dangerous lack of concern for manufacturing industry. The Government have been far too much inclined to believe that service industries can solve our problem. The reason for the apparent figures that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is able to produce is the fact that more women are at work and there is a higher proportion of service employment, a great deal of it part-time and probably low paid. That factor conceals a male unemployment rate in Scotland and elsewhere which is completely out of line with anything to be found in France, Germany, Italy and the United States—let alone Japan —which is socially and nationally debilitating.
The Secretary of State is entitled to produce bogus statistics for a little exchange across the Chamber, but he cannot take them seriously. If he does, he is effectively saying that Scottish unemployment is much less serious than that of Germany, France and any other mainland European country, which is manifestly not the case.
Several extremely interesting points emerge in the submission to the regional development fund. There is a frank comment on the level of industrial investment. It is


not entirely in accord with what the Government often say. I shall quote from the summary, which I read with interest. I have not read the 17 volumes and wonder whether the Minister or the Secretary of State has. The summary says:
In the present difficult economic climate, investment in directly productive industries is at a low level.
That is not what we hear from the Government a great deal of the time. The summary continues:
In these conditions, infrastructure developments are doubly important in both stimulating industrial demand and in creating new construction jobs, as well as preparing the assisted regions for new private investment in the future.
The summary makes a powerful point about innovation, research and development, and shows how they are associated almost inevitably with the headquarters of companies. I believe that the choice of headquarters is to a substantial extent associated with the site of political decision making. There is a real economic argument for Scottish devolution, including substantial economic devolution. Important innovation and decision making is drawn away to the south-east in particular and is associated inevitably with the foci of political power.

Mr. Maxton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the leader of the Liberal party that the alliance puts proportional representation before a Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Jenkins: It is essential to have proportional representation for a Scottish Assembly. I believe that one strong reason for the disappointing vote in the referendum was the considerable suspicion in Scotland about domination by one party caucus in one region of the country. There would have been a far stronger vote with proportional representation.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkins: No. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene once and I see no reason for allowing him to intervene again.
Next there is an extremely interesting and bland sentence that conceals a multitude of sins:
—"The UK Government takes account of expected ERDF receipts when planning public expenditure, and as a result the planned expenditure on the relevant programmes is higher than it would otherwise be.
That is a way of saying politely that ERDF money and other European money does not directly affect the total of public expenditure that goes to the regions. Speaking from direct experience, I have no doubt that the United Kingdom Government's persistent unwillingness to agree to additionality—to let money flow straight through to a project — has been a marginal disincentive to the United Kingdom receiving as much money as otherwise it might have received.
The Government are also rather bad—which seems to me to be very foolish—about drawing attention to the part that the ERDF and other Community funds have played in particular projects. The ERDF was crucial to the building of the Scottish exhibition and conference centre. It provided slightly over 30 per cent. of the capital cost. Alas, at the opening ceremony which I attended—I forget whether the hon. Gentleman did — no reference was made to this, which caused considerable affront to the director-general of the ERDF who had come to Scotland for the ceremony. It showed a little foolishness and a lack of skill and courtesy in presenting the case. However, the much more important point is the lack of additionality.
The other point that the Government have made is that Scotland has somewhat improved its relative position. That is a fact, but why has it improved its relative position? It is mainly because other countries and other regions, most notably the west midlands, have had their manufacturing industries decimated — at least — —by the present Government's policies. There is an element of truth in the Government's case. Scotland's relative move up the table does not mean that the present levels of unemployment in Scotland are acceptable, but if there should be a movement forward of the economy generally Scotland is better poised to take off than are many other parts of the country.
There is one other statement in the report which seems to me to make very good sense:
Regional prosperity cannot be achieved in the absence of national prosperity.
The Glasgow region is well poised to take off. In that sense, its relative capacity to take account of opportunities has improved. It does not assist Glasgow and the surrounding areas to pretend that everything is wrong and to cry "Woe" all the time. In the absence of the Government being prepared to give a stimulus to the economy along the lines laid down time and time again in the report, in particular to the regions which need it, that potential will not be realised, which will he a great and unnecessary waste.

Mr. Allan Stewart: This is an important and well attended debate. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister said in his excellent opening speech, it is just as well that the debate is not to take place next week. If we were to take the advice of the Scottish National party, hardly any of us would be able to reach Parliament next week. The SNP is urging Scottish Members to boycott flights from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London in November. If the boycott is not adhered to, those Members of Parliament who ignore it risk being photographed by SNP members, who are to keep a watch on Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. The Glasgow Herald says:
If any member is sighted the fact will be publicised in his own constituency.
This morning I searched Glasgow airport for some time in the hope of finding SNP photographers. I hope that the SNP will be able to guarantee that next week I shall be photographed at Glasgow airport boarding a plane in order to be here in time for the opening of the proceedings of this House. I hope, too, that it will guarantee that the photographs are publicised in the local press. That kind of silliness characterises many of the SNP's utterances on the more serious matters that the House is debating today, notably regional policy and jobs in Scotland.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has had a little fun with the boycott proposal, and I am sorry that he is a little disappointed that his photograph will not appear in the local press to show that he is doing his job. However, does he not accept that it is iniquitous that British Airways should be able to increase its fares on such a discriminatory basis in order to subsidise transatlantic services which have been hit by terrorist activity? Does this not result in a double jeopardy for Scotland? It is had for regional policy and it is bad for business men. Scotsmen


have to pay heavily to travel to London, and then they have to pay to go elsewhere because there are no direct international services from Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: Scottish business men do not need advice from the SNP on how to travel. British Airways has adequately explained its reasons for its fares structure.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the SNP's proposals for the revival of the Scottish economy. They are authoritatively described in the 3 September edition of the Glasgow Herald under the heading:
SNP unveils plan to cut dole queue by 100,000.
They are also authoritatively described in the 9 September edition of the Glasgow Herald under the heading:
SNP scheme to cut dole queue by 220,000.
It is remarkable that when referring to the same plan the SNP was able to double its alleged impact within six days. I suggest that those who plan SNP policies ought to buy a new envelope on which to do their sums.
I welcome what was said by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) about the prospects for the Central region. However, his most serious point related to the completely spurious row about the Government's submission to the European regional development fund. To say that this was a confidential document and that it had been leaked is absolute nonsense. It is a completely open document, and a copy has been placed in the Library.
The right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the Government's manufacturing industry policy amounted to a general criticism of the Government's regional policy of the kind that is constantly voiced by the Labour party and the SNP. Therefore, it is interesting to quote from a document that is equally non-confidential — the submission to the European regional development fund by the last Labour Government in 1978. It said:
Even when the recession has passed, unemployment rates may remain significantly higher than has been usual in recent years … some areas may be badly affected by shipbuilding redundancies, others by a decrease of manpower in the steel, textile and clothing industries.
The document then had this to say about the service industries:
Employment in service industries is likely to continue to increase, although not as quickly as in the past.
In that the Labour Government were wrong, because unemployment in the service industries has increased substantially under this Government.
The Labour Government continued:
The recent decline in employment in manufacturing industry and the present under-utilisation of existing capacity suggests that this sector is not likely to be a significant source of additional employment in the Assisted Areas.
That is what the Labour Government said about employment prospects, and it shows the hyprocrisy of many of the statements being made now in criticising the Government's regional policy.
It is important for the House to recognise the crucial point made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Regional policy is about relative levels of economic activity, and not about absolute levels of economic activity. However one looks at the figures, it is true that Scotland's relative position and prospects have improved over the years and that they are much better under this Government than they were in 1978 or 1979.
It is also important that right hon. and hon. Members should recognise that some of the traditional economic

arguments in favour of regional policy no longer apply. Those arguments, which applied not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the European Community, centred on the fact that regional policy was justified on the ground of economic efficiency to reduce the pressure from wage-push inflation in particular parts of the nation, or the Community.
That argument is no longer valid, but a general economic efficiency argument can still be made for regional policy is so far as it ensures that Scotland in particular and the United Kingdom generally receive inward investment, or at least those internationally mobile projects which they would not otherwise get. That would be a gain for the whole economy. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will be able to reassure the House that regional policy will retain sufficient flexibility for such investments to be continued.
It is interesting to note that the right hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and for Hillhead, in criticising cuts in expenditure, suggested that if either of their parties was in government it would reverse the Government's decision to make regional development policy expenditure more job-related. That was a sensible decision by the Government. I must tell the right hon. Member for Hillhead that if his party is now committed to the European Community, as I believe it is, he will find the taking of replacement expenditure from regional development grants, which he criticised, to be a condition of membership of the Community.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about the effectiveness of the new job grant. This alternative to traditional regional development grants has been effective, especially for smaller firms and for firms which may be setting up and expanding with replacement capital expenditure, rather than with new plant and machinery.
Any Government would be put under inevitable political and economic pressure to change the rules on regional policy, because it is inevitable that areas that are excluded will make representations to be included. That is a political fact of life. It is important that there should be a period of stability in regional policy, the present balance of which is correct, and I hope that the Government will not yield to the inevitable pressures to indulge in change. It is important that the business man has a period of stability in which to allow regional incentives to work well.

Mr. Roy Hughes: First, I congratulate the two nationalist parties on securing this debate. All Labour Members agree that an effective regional policy is vital to Scotland and Wales. I hope that the whole House will join me in regretting the indisposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), who should have taken part in this debate. He would undoubtedly have outlined the problems of Scotland, about which he speaks with such authority.
My task is to illustrate the severe economic depression that afflicts Wales. The same situation exists in Scotland, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) clearly outlined in his opening speech. The difficulties in Scotland and Wales are very much attributable to the Government's seven and a half years of office. What is more, there seems to be little hope for the future if they remain in office.
Last week, the cat was let out of the bag by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who published details of a hitherto unpublished report from the Government to the European Economic Community.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I shall clarify once and for all the status of this document. It is a draft document which was submitted to the European Economic Community as on previous occasions and, as on previous occasions, it was intended for publication. A copy of it was sent to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister can duck and weave as much as he likes, but the EEC believes the report to be true. It confirmed thinking within the Community on the situation in Britain today. The report was referred to in an interesting speech by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), and it stated that in 1990 unemployment in the United Kingdom would still be over 3 million. On Wales, there is the revealing submission that:
The overall economic activity rate is lower than any other region of Great Britain and is expected to remain so during the period that this programme covers".
All I can do is to add those famous words of Aneurin Bevan
Why look into the crystal ball when you can read the book?
In Welsh debates on the Floor of the House, and in the Welsh Grand Committee, we have often attacked the Secretary of State for Wales for his optimistic forecasts, which seem to be so divorced from reality. In this report to the EEC, we recognise that our worst fears have been confirmed.
The employment figures speak for themselves. In Welsh industry, taking the manufacturing sector as a group, the fall in the period 1979–85 was 110,000, while for the production and construction industries as a whole, employment has fallen by 141,000. Overall industrial output in the third quarter of 1985 was 13·9 per cent. lower than in 1979. The Welsh mining industry has been decimated almost beyond recognition, and now we are told that further job losses are to be expected.
The same woeful tale can be told of our rail network. Last week the Secretary of State for Transport announced a 25 per cent. cut in funding to British Rail. That is bound to have an adverse effect on fares. Lines are put at risk in Wales. There will be no moves towards electrification and the public will suffer from a deteriorating service.
With regard to freight and the proposed closure of the Severn tunnel junction, it seems that instead of fighting for a larger slice of the trade British Rail is abdicating its responsibilities. By doing so it is endangering the job security of its work force and making worse the congestion on our already overcrowded roads.
Wales is a relatively poor area with declining heavy industry and slow industrial growth. That situation is marked by heavy unemployment and low household incomes. Certain districts, particularly our valley communities, have been badly hit. They are wonderful communities in every sense of that term. Jobs are at a premium, though. Depopulation has set in and massive efforts are now required to revive their dying infrastructure.
Everywhere in Wales, not just the valleys, the position is bleak. Therefore, one would hardly think that the way

to tackle matters was drastically to cut regional aid. However, that is what happened. On 28 November 1984 the Government announced the changes. They also provided for a greater spread of the reduced regional aid funding to cover service industries.
We could all accept the need for change, the need to move financial assistance away from automatic subsidy of capital expenditure and towards incentives for employment. We could accept the need to ensure that aid is given to areas that are most seriously affected by unemployment, industrial decline and structural change. However, there was no justification for slashing aid in the way that the Government decided upon. It was purely a cost-cutting exercise. The need for change was perverted into yet another attempt to cut public expenditure. The Government will not recognise that the greatest waste of all is unemployment. When regional aid is cut unemployment is directly stimulated.
Our local authorities have felt let down by the Government. Many of them have taken considerable interest in the economic development of their areas because that is the most important issue that faces their citizens. Many imaginative schemes have been proposed, but the response from the Welsh Office has been inadequate and faint-hearted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has repeatedly called for Wales to be designated an assisted area, but his plea has fallen on deaf ears. Wages in Wales are falling behind but unemployment is rising. That blows sky high the Government's claim that low wages mean more jobs.
Now the storm clouds are gathering over Britain. There is persistent pressure on the pound. Mortgage rates have moved upwards and there are signs of more to come. The inflation rate is starting to move up again. There is a deficit in trade in manufactured goods and a more persistent deficit in our overall balance of payments. With the Government's policies our country is heading for disaster.
By contrast we have the imaginative proposals of the Labour party that are contained in the new publication "Investing in People". [Interruption.] Hon. Members will be smiling on the other side of their faces before long. There is one sentence in that document which will give hope to so many people in Scotland and Wales. It says:
Every time we create a new job we turn a claimant into a taxpayer, a wasted life into a productive one.
Investing in our people is the way forward for Britain, and the sooner the Government are turned out the better.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am grateful for the brevity of the previous three speeches. Those hon. Members who will be replying to the debate hope to catch my eye at 6.30 pm, so I appeal for continued brevity.

Mr. Alexander Pollock: I preface my remarks with two observations of a personal nature. Like other hon. Members, I am sorry about the indisposition of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), the Opposition spokesman on Scottish affairs, and I should like to be associated with the expressions of recovery for him at the earliest possible time.
I am delighted to have been preceded in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and should like to place on record that during his term in


the Scottish Office I found him always willing to listen to the problems facing my constituents and with a welcome anxiety to help whenever he could. In particular, in the context of the debate, I should like to pay tribute to the launching in Scotland during his term of office of the programme for rural initiatives and development and for giving greater focus to the rural aspects of the work carried out by the Scottish Development Agency. Indeed, he was able to assure rural Members of Parliament such as myself that, on a per capita basis, a disproportionately larger sum was being spent in the rural areas of Scotland than strict demographic criteria might warrant.
The most interesting and curious aspect of the motion is its timing. It will not have escaped notice that on Saturday the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) made what was, presumably in his terms at least, an important speech in Wales. According to The Sunday Post:
Welsh and Scottish Nationalists were urged yesterday to 'stand shoulder to shoulder' because of the likely prospect of a third Conservative Government. The call came from SNP chairman Gordon Wilson, MP for Dundee East, in a speech to Plaid Cymru's annual conference near Llanelli".
He went on:
Our two parties have made arrangements to take advantage of a hung Parliament, but we must face the likelihood of a third term of Thatcher and all that implies".

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman must take into account the fact that I suggested that there might be a constitutional crisis because of the Tories winning on English votes. The hon. Gentleman knows the danger of the Scottish Conservatives becoming extinct at the next election.

Mr. Pollock: We faced that danger in 1979 and 1983 and successfully overcame it and I am sure that we are ready to meet it again.
We know that the leader of the Liberal party once told his troops to prepare for Government, but it is unusual to tell one's troops to prepare for defeat and the political wilderness. If the hon. Gentleman finds that hard to follow he should remember that he has already made it clear to his conference delegates that in no way will the nationalists play any part in working with the next Conservative Government. The electors of Moray expect a rather different attitude. They look to their Member of Parliament to work as best he can with the Government of the day in promoting the proper interests of his constituents.
I was puzzled as to why the hon. Gentleman's speech was made in Wales rather than in Scotland, but then the reason became quite clear. It is comparatively easy to talk to another party about the attraction of an alliance but rather more difficult to do so closer to home, especially in one's own constituency when its association chairman has just resigned, according to the press, to campaign against the party's neutralist defence policy. It might also have been rather unwise to make such a speech in Thurso, where the local Scottish National party branch is openly at odds with the party leadership on nuclear policy.
Regional policy must be vigorously pursued as an important aspect of overall national economic policy. Certainly hitherto the Government have shown a welcome determination to do just that. For example, following the major regional policy review which took place earlier in

this Parliament, the Government properly recognised the special needs of the Forres area in my constituency and allowed it to retain assisted area status. But of even more significance was the decision earlier this year by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to extend, subject to the approval of Parliament, the area of the Highlands and Islands Development Board to include the areas of upper Speyside and west Moray in my constituency. The relevant statutory instrument to carry out that action will be debated in the House next week.
Although there is no sign at present of an alteration in the budget allocated to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, I trust that the funding will be monitored carefully in the light of any pressure on funds that may emerge following the extension into the Moray area. I suspect, however, that in future regional policy such all-embracing geographical demarcations of areas in need of special recognition will be less likely to find favour with our economic masters. Instead emphasis is much more likely to be placed on sectoral aid for specific economic activity.
I do not necessarily quarrel with that approach provided that due recognition is given to those sectors that most properly qualify for support. Due regard must be given to those traditional industries that will remain of critical importance long after transient developments have disappeared. An example is farming, whose importance in areas such as my constituency was well summarised recently by the farming editor of The Press and Journal, Mr. Bill Howatson. On 16 October, he wrote:
It is salutary just to take stock of the importance of farming in the economy of the region"—
that is to say Grampian region—
and to bring some of the facts to the attention of the general public, whose conceptions of the industry are solely based on milk lakes, butter mountains and feather-bedded farmers.
By stark contrast to the overall Scottish position where agriculture accounts for less than 4% of total industrial output, in Grampian, the equivalent figure is more than 7% and worth £350,000,000.
Agriculture and related industries accounted for an estimated 18–6% of regional output in 1984 and the farming tentacles stretch far into the wider economy.
How is farming best helped? The Government as a whole, or failing that the Scottish Office at least, should consider issuing a new paper on what is expected from our farming community. The last such policy paper, "Food from our own Resources"—

Mr. John Home Robertson: There was another one after that.

Mr. Pollock: —has now been overtaken. The Government now need to issue guidelines, within the framework of European membership, to show what they expect from the farming community. I say to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that one thing that would not be wanted in any such paper is the kind of comment recently published in the Labour policy paper which stated that the intention was to see that agricultural land and buildings were brought within the rating system.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman say something about the likely impact of the poll tax which his party intends to impose on farmworkers and other people in rural Scotland?

Mr. Pollock: I regret giving way, as the hon. Gentleman has failed to understand the rationale behind the new welcome community charge, which we trust will be introduced in the Gracious Speech.
Another suggestion which is of relevance, not just to the farming community but to the wider business community, and which hon. Members should consider is the merit of a two-tier interest rate system. That system is operated by many of our partners in the European Community. My constituents Lind it hard to understand why, when there is a financial crisis, no distinction is drawn between those local business men who must borrow as part of sound business practice and those international speculators whose motives are utterly different.
There is no especial difficulty in offering subsidised credit to one part of the community. That is what happens with French farmers. The Government merely need to subsidise the lending institution which can then borrow at the going rate on the financial market and lend more cheaply to farmers, or whoever the beneficiaries might be.
Another beneficiary could be the textile industry, which is of great importance to rural economies, including Elgin and Keith, both of which are in my constituency, but unfortunately outwith the Highlands and Islands Development Board's extension. Those communities would benefit enormously from being able to plan with confidence in a stable atmosphere rather than in the current uncertainty. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replies he will say whether his Department and the Scottish Office are willing to explore this matter further with the Treasury.
The relationship of company headquarters to their manufacturing bases was touched on by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). Too often in recent years too many of the decision makers in board rooms have moved further and further from the social and economic fabric on which their profits rest. Clearly, as recent events in the whisky industry have shown, moral persuasion and principle are insufficient weapons to bring them closer. I wonder, therefore, whether a different appeal could be made, an overt appeal to the pockets of board members by way of tax incentives for making a worthwhile contribution to the arts or to other worthy causes in their work forces' locality. That would be better than money being spent on grander settings elsewhere for reasons of national or international prestige. Such incentives might provide a worthwhile route back to the re-creation in those companies of local loyalties, local commitments and investment by those whose money is made largely from the remoter regions.
In short, for a successful regional policy, new ways must continually be sought to develop an ever stronger partnership between central Government and those businesses on which the regional economy must continue to rely.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock) touched of an important point, and I thought that he was going to develop it. He said that companies whose headquarters were away from the manufacturing base might become more and more remote in their policy decisions. That has important implications for regional policy. Our experience in Wales is probably similar to that in Scotland and in many of the English regions. We have discovered that when the first ill winds

of a depression blow, the branch factory is closed first, and the headquarters last the longest. If fiscal incentives were available to companies so that they located their headquarters in development areas in Scotland, Wales and the depressed parts of England, it might have a significant impact on unemployment. It would certainly be worth exploring that avenue.
It is also worth looking at regional policy in a general context. The motion has been drawn broadly enough to cover the English regions as well as those of Scotland and Wales. After all, both the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru recognise that it is not only Wales and Scotland that have severe problems, but that parts of the north of England and Merseyside also have tremendous problems and need a much more effective regional policy.
On 24 July 1979 the then Secretary of State for Industry, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), referred to the changes that the Conservative Government would make to regional policy and said:
We propose to toughen the criteria for the provision of regional selective assistance under section 7 of the 1972 Act, and for assistance that is not attached to regions but covers the whole country under section 8. Those changes have the efffect of concentrating assistance from the taxpayer on the areas of highest unemployment and most need for improvement in economic structure. They will focus and concentrate the benefits of regional policy".
The right hon. Gentleman said that in 1979, when unemployment in Wales amounted to 73,000. He continued:
It is always open to the Government of the day to introduce changes when circumstances change."—[Official Report, 24 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 364.]
In the next four years circumstances certainly changed. Indeed, by 1983 circumstances in Wales had changed so much that that figure of 73,000 unemployed people had increased to 162,000. Consequently, there was a new Government regional policy. The 1983 White. Paper, Cmnd. 9111, contains an interesting quote on page 3, under the heading, "The Government's Approach". It says:
Imbalances between areas in employment opportunities should in principle be corrected by the natural adjustment of labour markets. In the first place, this should be through lower wages and unit costs than comparable work commands elsewhere.
That was the new regional policy in 1983, after the previous policy had visibly failed to work. We have now had two years of that new policy, and unemployment in Wales has reached 180,000. If the 40,000 or 50,000 people benefiting from temporary jobs and under the MSC schemes are included, the figure is nearer to 250,000.
The Government's regional policy has failed abysmally. Even those bits of regional policy that have worked have not been effective enough. A document by Moore, Rhodes and Tyler was published a few months ago and summarises the position well. It is entitled, "The Effects of Government Regional Economic Policy", and on page 12 it says:
However, the scale of the regional problem as a whole in relation to what regional policy can be expected to achieve is alarming. For regional policy to have solved the regional problem in the decade of the 1960s, policy would have had to have been two to three times more effective than it actually was. For regional policy to have solved the regional problem during the decade of the 1970s, regional policy would have had to have been about three times more effective that it actually was.


The authors pull their punches when it comes to the 1980s by concluding:
The case for an active regional policy in the 1980s therefore remains strong.
I have rarely seen such an understatement. In fact there has been an active withdrawal from regional policy.
In Wales the unemployment situation is now desperate. The European regional development fund report, which has been leaked, or published, depending on whose version one accepts, draws attention to the situation in a quite graphic way. It says:
for the Production and Construction industries as a whole employment has fallen by 141,000 … industrial output in the third quarter of 1985 was 13·9 per cent. lower than in 1979 …. Unemployment rates in Wales have been higher than those in Great Britain as a whole for a very long time. The recent national industrial decline coupled with the disadvantages of Wales has meant that the rates in Wales are now very high.
Indeed, 180,370 people are now unemployed in Wales, and that has a direct bearing on wage levels. In April 1985 the average wage for a man in Wales was £179 a week, compared with £233 in the London area. Thus, a man in Wales earns on average £54 a week less than his counterpart in London, and in the poorer parts of Wales the discrepancy is even greater. The figure for women in Wales is £119 a week, compared with £154 for women in the London area. Again, women in Wales earn on average £35 less a week. Thus, Wales suffers not only from higher unemployment but from low wage levels. That, in turn, depresses purchasing power and the economy as a whole.
When unemployment in the midlands and in the southeast of England becomes worse, there is an active withdrawal from regional policy. Bodies such as the Welsh Development Agency are supposed to concern themselves with the development of the economy, but during the past six or seven years the WDA has not been sufficiently interventionist in its approach. It has not adopted enough initiatives to try to overcome the problems facing Wales. It has had to try to get a return on capital investment that has been targeted by the Government, and as a result it has not been able to use its money in the best way socially. In the corporate plan for 1984 to 1990 the factory investment programme was slashed from £11·5 million to £6 million, yet we need more factory building, not less.
Regional regeneration will not be achieved purely by more incentives. We need a direct capital investment programme in Wales, and no doubt in Scotland too. We need such a programme for social projects, such as housing. After all, 100,000 houses in Wales are unfit for habitation in one way or another and need to be improved. Old-fashioned schools need to be replaced, and hospitals need to be improved, along with community facilities. Probably all the regions need work done on water and sewerage. The Welsh water authority has a £1,000 million programme that it could get on with more rapidly if more money was available.
In April, in its response to the report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Welsh water authority said:
The projected capital programme assumes that the authority's income base remains firm and that the increased capital can be made available without unacceptable increases in the level of charges or increased borrowing requirements.

The truth is that bodies such as the Welsh water authority need more money so that they can get on with their much needed work if we are to overcome the unemployment problems of Wales.
We also need direct expenditure on economic projects, such as factory building. We need more investment in industry. The development of new coal mines, such as the Margam mine, should be accelerated and money should be pumped in. One of the most important factors for Wales is the development of communications. I refer not only to electrification of the railways, but to our roads.
For 20 years Labour and Tory Governments have concentrated spending on roads in Wales on those that run east-west, to the virtual exclusion of those running north-south. Although I appreciate the need for much of that spending on the A55 and the M4 if traffic congestion is to be relieved, the time has come for the north-south links in Wales to be a political and economic priority, with the modernisation of those roads being part of the economic regeneration strategy.
As today's debate has an important European regional dimension, it is appropriate to look forward in a European context. One of the most imaginative and far-reaching ideas, which could have an enormous impact on all of Wales—north, mid and south—is the construction of a major highway linking the A5 in north Wales to the M4 in south Wales. That would then serve as a primary route for Irish road traffic travelling to Europe through the new Channel tunnel.
The existing road service, using the M6 and M1, is fast becoming clogged with traffic, particularly around Birmingham and London. From a south Wales viewpoint there is a need for a fast, convenient road link from the M4 to the Channel tunnel. A north-south road in Wales, involving a rapid upgrading of the A5 in Gwynedd and a spine road linking it to the A470 at Merthyr Tydfil, would enable traffic to travel the length of Wales in under three hours. It could cut the journey time for Irish road traffic to the Channel tunnel by up to two hours.
The building of such a road would provide much needed job opportunities along its full length. If the EEC wants to be seen as making a strategic impact on Wales and as making critical improvements to transport links for Ireland, this project must surely commend itself to the EEC and would be a much more sensible approach than the present policy of scattering largesse like confetti on a myriad of minor local projects with no strategic vision or central economic purpose.
I call on the Welsh Office to open immediate discussions with the EEC on such a project with a view to getting a pilot study undertaken in 1987, a firm decision in 1988 and a rolling construction programme that will get the road in being by the middle of the 1990s. Its opening can be phased with the opening of the Channel tunnel. A scheme such as this would bring the vital impetus that is needed in the Welsh economy and would improve prospects for employment, especially in the construction industry. It would revolutionise communications in Wales and open a new era for our country.
A number of approaches to regional policy need to be rethought. We have possibly thought too much in terms of manufacturing industry, but there are great opportunities in Wales for service industries, such as the film industry. We already have the infrastructure for the S4C channel. We should be looking at our strengths. Universities are being closed, but education in Wales could


be a major source of new development. The agriculture industry is being attacked by Government policy, but we could be developing job opportunities in agriculture.
A desperate situation exists in my county of Gwynedd. Of the worst nine counties of England and Wales for unemployment four are in Wales, and Gwynedd is the fourth worst in England and Wales. In spite of that, only about a quarter of our land area is covered by development area status. That is not good enough.
The EEC needs to be much more effective in its policies for Gwynedd and a way has to be found for more EEC money to find its way to the county. The Government say that the answer may be tourism, but tourism is a seasonal industry in areas like ours and we need employment all the year round.
We are also threatened by the possible closure of nuclear power stations. If that happens there will have to be a major initiative such as those that we saw with BSC or by British Coal in areas hit by closures. We need something like a £50 million job replacement fund in the area of a nuclear power station closure in order to get alternative jobs.
More than anything, we need new thinking and new dynamism. We want to see the Welsh Office, in conjunction with the EEC, getting to grips with the problem. We need a Wales office in Brussels to make sure that Wales gets a fair crack of the whip from the EEC. We need a dynamic approach, but the approach by the Welsh Office is tired, lethargic, sterile and sullen.
If Wales is to have a level of unemployment similar to that in other small countries, such as Norway, where unemployment is 2 per cent., or Sweden, where it is 3 per cent. we need new ideas and a new dynamism. In the face of the failure by the Welsh Office, we can get that only if we have our own senate in Wales and dynamism growing from within Wales. I have encapsulated in my speech the failure of Government policy. That policy shows no sign of change. The Government have no new ideas, and that is why we condemn them.

Mr. Keith Raffan: As a Scotsman by birth and a Welshman by election, I welcome this debate although not the terms of the motion. I am sorry that more English hon. Members, particularly from the south, are not present because nothing would be worse than to create in Disraeli's words
two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy.
Wales and Scotland may have relatively small populations when compared to England and we may be looked upon as being on the geographical periphery of these islands, but we are in the economic and industrial front line.
As history has shown, there is no greater stimulus to separatist movements within the two nations than the periodic fits of indifference displayed by the English establishment. It is that indifference that provokes a narrow, inward-looking nationalism that is, of course contrary to the true character of the Welsh and the Scots. That true character is an enthusiastic and intelligent internationalism.
The economic problems facing Wales and Scotland are not regional or peripheral. I think all hon. Members will agree with that. They are the problems of Britain writ large, and no more so than in my constituency of Delyn. In the last 15 years a quarter of the labour force in my

constituency have lost their jobs. The two towns of Flint and Holywell currently have a male unemployment rate of 41 per cent. Delyn is a classic example of an area that has suffered massive structural unemployment because its local economy was too narrowly based, too over dependent on just two industries—textiles and steel.
We in Delyn realised fromthe start that we had to create a much more widely based local economy if we were to make a significant impact on the unacceptably high level of unemployment in the area. We could not have had more support from the Government in so doing. [Interruption.] I will gladly give way. I am glad that so many Opposition Members know my constituency better than I do. I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for Buenos Aires, or whatever the name of his Ayrshire constituency is, or to any of his fellow Scots or even to some of the Welsh hon. Members if they can contradict what I have said. [AN HON. MEMBER: "You do not know the constituencyl I do. I am speaking about the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). The name of his constituency keeps changing. Nothing more could have been done by the Government. That is not a quote from me because it was said by the chief executive of my borough council and I am sure Opposition Members will agree that he is an independent-minded man with no party political stance. Silence reigns in the Opposition.
The Government ensured that Courtaulds did not walk away from a community that had served that company for so long and so well. The Government gave Delyn the highest level of development area status. The Government designated the Delyn enterprise zone and backed it with over £8 million creating, in the words of the borough's chief executive John Packer,
the most attractive industrial location in Wales.
Already the Delyn enterprise zone has made a substantial contribution to the developmet of a new, dynamic and diverse local economy, showing itself as an outstandingly effective instrument of regional policy.
Over 800 new jobs have been created since the designation of the zone in 1983. Over 60 per cent. of those are full-time male jobs. Over 80 per cent. are in manufacturing in a wide range of industrial activities such as packaging, clothes, frozen foods and electronics. Three major factories are still to open and a further 650 new jobs have recently been announced. The jobs that have been created are all new jobs and the companies locating in the enterprise zone are starting up or expanding. There has been no poaching of jobs from other areas. Again, in the words of our chief executive:
Unemployment peaked in this area in 1982. There was a small reduction in 1983. Since then it has been relatively sizable despite the Courtaulds redundancies in 1984–85. There is now the preliminary indication of a downward turn. Delyn's unemployment rate has fallen against the national rate. In other words, I believe the signs are we have hit the bottom of the trough. We have absorbed the major Courtaulds closure and are now beginning to see a slight improvement.
That trend was confirmed to me last weekend by Mr. Paul Jones, who is the manager of the Shotton jobcentre. He also has responsibility for the jobcentres in my constituency at Flint and Holywell. He said that the local job market was buoyant and that there were a remarkable number of vacancies. He added that he and his colleagues do not have to go out to local companies to market the centres because they have so many jobs on their books.


Contrary to the expectations of Mr. Jones and his colleagues, they have surpassed last year's figures for vacancies at this time of the year.
All credit is due to the Secretary of State for Wales and his team — and to Delyn borough council — for their tremendous achievement in bringing about such a significant turn around in the industrial fortunes of my area. But we must keep the momentum going. The enterprise zone approach has proved how effective an intensive localised response to the problems of unemployment can be. The problems that we now face are the problems of success—[Interruption.] I am glad to tell the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that I am not joking. If the hon. Gentleman listens to me, he will realise what the problems are and that I am asking the Minister for his help. I am quite willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wigley: If we face the problem of success, why is it that Clwyd, with 18.7 per cent. unemployment, is one of the worst six counties for unemployment in Wales?

Mr. Raffan: The hon. Gentleman has not been following my speech. I saw him looking at his notes. I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I bring him up to date because, clearly, he was not concentrating. I was talking of the marked impact of the Delyn enterprise zone on unemployment levels in my constituency. I quoted the chief executive of the borough council and the manager of the local Jobcentre, who said that unemployment had been decreasing. I am glad that that piece of good news has now been heard by the hon. Gentleman. It will brighten up his day.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raffan: I have just given way and I shall not give way again immediately.
We must keep the momentum going. The enterprise zone has proved how effective an intensive, localised response to unemployment can be. Our problem is one of success. We are fast running out of space at Flint. The Delyn enterprise zone is smaller than the average in the United Kingdom, extending only to 263 acres, whereas the average size of enterprise zones is 360 acres. The amount of land available for development is only 136 acres, of which only 89 acres have been available for genuinely new development. The extension of the zone to cover the former Courtaulds Greenfield site would make up that deficiency by adding a further 102 acres. That would bring the zone up to the average size of enterprise zones in the United Kingdom and would give the private sector the incentive to invest at Greenfield.
In Delyn it is widely accepted by Ministers, officials and Members of Parliament that we have an enterprising, determined local authority. In the words of Dr. Norman Wooding, deputy chairman of Courtaulds, we also have a labour force
second to none, first-class, hard-working, highly motivated and extremely flexible.
All we need is for the land that we have available for industrial development to be given enterprise zone status. When fully developed, the Greenfield business park will have the potential of creating 2,300 jobs. That will go a long way towards tackling local unemployment.
The Government have shown great concern for the problems facing Delyn and have provided an effective regional policy for the area. We look to the Welsh Office for a continuation of the strong support that it has given in the past. The Government have begun to reverse the industrial decline of the past 15 to 20 years and have achieved a reduction in local unemployment figures.
If we listen to the Labour party, unemployment suddenly started one day in May 1979 when the Prime Minister crossed the threshold of No. 10 Downing street. It conveniently forgets that unemployment doubled in Wales when it was in government. It conveniently forgets that major redundancies took place in my constituency amounting to the loss of more than 2,000 jobs. During that period some of my constituents had the misfortune to be represented by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones)—luckily only some of them. At that time he was also a Minister at the Welsh Office, so he is doubly culpable.
I attack not only the record of the Labour party but its future policies, which were revealingly described by the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)—he let his own cat out of the bag—as "imaginative proposals."

Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): We need imagination to understand them.

Mr. Raffan: Exactly.
The mind boggles when we think of the Labour party's proposals. One presumes that the hon. Gentleman was referring to last week's report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies—that neutral body which estimated that the
policies of the Labour party so far detailed would cost £10 billion. The others, which are less clearly formulated and are mostly drawn from the speeches of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), are so far uncosted, but were described as being "expensive". I cannot but find myself agreeing with the leader of Sheffield city council, Mr. David Blunkett — I do not usually find myself in agreement with a member of Labour's national executive committee—that the shadow Chancellor would have no option other than to raise the standard rate of income tax, and that he should come clean on that point.
The benefits brought to Delyn by the Government's outstandingly successful enterprise zone policy would be put in jeopardy if the Labour party had its way. The shadow Home Secretary, in a former incarnation, said of enterprise zones
We shall have no more of them.
I am aware that Labour party policy has the habit of mutating, so in my speech during the Welsh day debate earlier this year I asked the hon. Doctor for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas), who now and then is brought in to give badly needed first aid to the Labour Front Bench, to say in his reply whether the party had changed its policy of open hostility to enterprise zones. He did not respond. I can only assume that the Labour party is still against them. I warn Labour Members that that is a vote loser second to none in Delyn. I warn my constituents that the 800 new jobs already created in Delyn enterprise zone and the many to come that have been announced will be in grave danger should the Labour party ever return to power.
The fundamental rethink of policy called for in this motion is required, not by the Government, but by the Labour party. The people of Delyn know that the


Conservative party, this Government, the Secretary of State and his team do not merely talk about putting people first, but actually do so.

Mr. John Maxton: I am sure that the constituents of Delyn will read that speech in their local newspaper. I noted that the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) spent most of his time addressing the officials in the Box and I can only assume that they wrote his speech for him. But from my information it will not do much to save him at the general election.
In view of the motion tabled by the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I was interested in the speech by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) in Wales this weekend. It is clear from it that a Tory victory at the general election will best suit the SNP and PC. I only hope that the people of Scotland listened to his speech and are aware that the SNP want another Tory Government because the Scottish people certainly do not.

Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maxton: I will not give way. Two or three hon. Members still wish to speak.
It is a bit much for the SNP to attack the Government's regional policy in this motion when it played such an important part in ensuring that we had a Tory Government by voting against the Labour Government and bringing it down. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is not present. He spoke about shipyards in regional policy, but some people in the Labour party remember SNP hon. Members standing in their seats in 1974, tearing up telegrams from Scottish shipyard workers who suggested that they should support the Labour Government's plans for the shipbuilding industry. It is a bit much for those hon. Members to preach to us about these matters.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Maxton: I shall not give way because we have a brief debate.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) is not in his seat. I asked him a question, which he answered, and then tried to ask him whether the alliance would vote against a Scottish devolution Bill which will be introduced by the next Labour Government, but will not provide for proportional representation. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) has made it clear that he will. Eighty-four per cent. of the Scottish people who have said that they want devolution have a right to know alliance policy on that before they decide how to vote at the general election.
Much of the debate has been about the European regional development fund report. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) should be congratulated on both it and a new book that he has just written and that has recently been published. I can recommend it to anybody. It is a good read.
There are two criteria against which we have to judge the report. The first is that it is a Government report. The Prime Minister misled the House last week when she suggested that it was manufactured by local government. That was a distortion of the facts.
The second aspect is whether the report tells the truth. We should like to know whether it does. It says that in

1990 unemployment will be as high as or higher than it is today. The Under-Secretary spent considerable time wriggling over whether the report included projections or assumptions—I am not sure what the difference is—but the report says that unemployment will be at least as high in 1990 as it is today. Is that true?
A number of policy assumptions are made in the report. Talking about the infrastructure in the Highlands, it says:
the marginal nature of much of the economic activity means that even small savings in transport costs may make the difference between success or failure.
It lists the building of the Dornoch Firth rail crossing as a priority plan and comments:
further investment on the rail network between Inverness and Thurso, in particular the proposed Dornoch Firth road/ rail crossing will greatly increase the efficiency of the rail network and will be compatible with major track modernisation in the Inverness area".
That was set out in the Government's report to the ERDF, but the Government rejected the rail link because, although it was technically feasible,
there was no sound economic case for a rail crossing
on top of the £20 million road bridge. That goes completely against what the Government put in the report that they submitted to the ERDF. Not only that, but the Government were so inefficient that they did not bother to submit any Dornoch railway project to the ERDF. It is disgraceful that a Government can indulge in that level of duplicity.
I know that one or two other hon. Members still wish to speak, so I will conclude with one more quote from the document, though hon. Members may not believe that it is a quote from a Conservative Government. Talking about development objectives, it says:
In urban areas, in order to improve economic performance, direct measures must go hand in hand with the renewal of ageing systems, environmental improvement, the reclamation of derelict land, upgrading of the housing stock and the adaption of commercial and industrial premises to provide suitable accommodation for small and medium sized enterprises.
If anybody believes that the Government's economic policy in Scotland, Wales or any other region has been about since 1979, he should look at the record. The people of Britain will do that in 1987 or 1988. When they look at the record, the Conservatives will be out and we shall be in.

Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) told us that the SNP has said that it wants the Conservatives to form the next Government, but the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Plant Conwy (Mr. Thomas), the president of Plaid Cymru, told us on the radio yesterday that he wanted Labour to form the next Government.
I hope that the SNP and Plaid Cymru sort out their differences, bearing in mind their new pact—

Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Best: No, I will not give way. I shall be happy to arbitrate on the two parties' difficulties on another occasion when we have more time.

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do not our Standing Orders say that when an hon. Member has been unjustly attacked from both sides of the Chamber he has the right to reply? I should regard with


the greatest reluctance, horror and dismay the election for a third term of the present Prime Minister and her Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member knows that it is up to each hon. Gentleman to decide whether to give way.

Mr. Best: I am glad that I have already been of assistance to the SNP and Plaid Cymru in sorting out some of the minor difficulties that they are experiencing over which party they wish to form the next Government.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that we needed a direct capital investment programme. He visits many parts of Wales and is an assiduous attender in his constituency. If he looks around he will see that a direct capital investment programme is going on now. In northwest Wales, the area in which the hon. Gentleman and I are particularly interested, the latest programme of land reclamation works includes three major schemes with estimated individual project costs of over £500,000. In the period up to December 1987 it is planned to start construction of three further major road schemes, with a total estimated cost of £228 million. There are also plans for further substantial investment of £8 million in facilities at the Holyhead port in my constituency, and there is a substantial investment programme in water supply improvements and sewerage, at a total cost of £6·5 million. In addition, capital expenditure on improvements in the electricity network in north Wales will total £2·3 million.
I know that the hon. Member for Caernarfon usually travels by train, but if he drives to his constituency he will travel along the A55 where more than £400 million of Welsh Office money is being spent on improving the road. That will have the same effect on north-west Wales, in terms of the development of industry, as the M4 had on south Wales when it pushed into that area.
All that work adds up to a fairly creditable investment programme. It seems that the hon. Member for Caernarfon's answer to the problems of Wales is to build a major highway between the A5 and the M4. I do not know what he thinks the people of Wales will think of Irish pantechnicons rumbling through Wales, with all the associated environmental effects. At present, they can bypass Wales and preserve our environment.
I also do not know where the hon. Gentleman expects to get the money for his project. In the self-governing Wales advocated by Plaid Cymru, the people of the Principality will be ill equipped to provide the massive funds that presently come from the economy of the whole of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon asks for more advance factories and complains that only a small part of Gwynedd is a development area. Does he seriously want advance factories in the Snowdon national park, or perhaps up Snowdon itself?

Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Best: No.

Mr. Wigley: But the hon. Gentleman has made a personal attack on me.

Mr. Best: I usually give way to the hon. Gentleman, but his hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will reply to the debate and I am sure that he will be able to deal with all the points that I am making.
The people of Wales have recently had the benefit of seeing Plaid Cymru's blueprint for Wales unveiled at its annual party conference in Tumble. Considering the way in which Plaid Cymru performed, the name of the place could not be more appropriate. If any of us thought that there was any danger of a cohesive and compelling set of policies emerging from Plaid Cymru, that fear was laid to rest at its conference.
I like both Plaid Cymru Members as individuals. We do not often cross swords and we can and do work together for the benefit of our constituents. Indeed, I have no doubt that if the hon. Member for Caernarfon had been a member of one of the important political parties in Wales he would by now have been a Minister wielding real political power. Sadly, that will always be denied him unless he is prepared to cross the Floor of the House.
The trouble is that Plaid Cymru is not worthy of the two hon. Gentlemen who represent it in Parliament. However, it is worthwhile to examine the blueprint set out at Plaid Cymru's conference recently and how it will benefit the Welsh economy. Plaid Cymru believes that Wales should leave NATO. Wales is a nuclear-free zone. I do not know whether that has been communicated to the Politbureau so that when the rest of the world is burning because of nuclear holocaust Wales will be preserved in some miraculous way. Being a nuclear-free zone did not have a dramatic effect on the way in which the tragedy of the Chernobyl cloud affected north Wales. The Plaid Cymru manifesto in 1983 said:
No country could isolate itself from a nuclear conflict".
And yet isolationism, neutralism and a departure from the only Alliance that can preserve the freedoms of the western world is a significant part of Plaid Cymru policy.
Plaid Cymru is keen on agriculture. A press report under the heading "Farming Blueprint" describes a comprehensive policy for rural Wales which involves the establishment of a Welsh land commission to control the number and size of farms. How many farmers in Wales want to be controlled in number and size by a quango? The article says that a land tax would be introduced to deter very large farming units and that the suggested commission would buy farms to enable county councils to hold one fifth of all holdings for lease at low rents to new farmers.
I do not know whether Welsh farmers will look particularly favourably on the proposition that their land should be expropriated by a Government commission so that it can be let out to tenants or be deterred by a Government quango from operating large farming units.
In the energy debate Plaid Cymru decided by the narrowest of margins that we should not close all nuclear power stations in Wales. I am sure that there is no link whatsoever with the fact that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy represents the constituency with Trawsfynydd in it. Everybody knows that Plaid Cymru is opposed to nuclear energy, and some would say that the policy is cynical and drafted for purely electoral reasons.
The great panacea for Wales is said to be the creation of a senate—a senate which, incidentally, would be run by the Labour party because Plaid Cymru has only two of


the 38 Welsh seats. Plaid Cymru would, therefore, hand over the fortunes of Wales to the Labour party by the creation of a senate.
Experiments in self-government have been tried in Northern Ireland. None of them has been particularly successful and yet Plaid Cymru still is determined on that route. Its supporters seem to be blind to the overwhelming result in the 1979 referendum. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said on that occasion that he recognised an elephant when it was in his back garden. Plaid Cymru seems to be surrounded by a safari park. Its members cannot see the writing on the wall.
Plaid Cymru has existed for 61 years. What has it achieved in that time? Workmen's compensation for pneumoconiosis? Not so, say the trade unions. They say that they were responsible for that. Was it responsible for S4C? The Government had already committed themselves to that. The Welsh Language Act 1967? I welcomed it, but it was introduced by a Labour Government. Even if Plaid Cymru were responsible for all those measures, not one of them directly affects the economic well-being of the Welsh people. That is not much of a record.
The 1979 Plaid Cymru manifesto called for an economic plan for Wales. We have heard that phrase elsewhere, but it usually emanates from eastern European countries with all the commensurate disaster. The reality is that Plaid Cymru is not the national party of Wales. It is not Plaid Cymru but Plaid Hanner Gwynedd. It is the county party for half of Gwynedd. Plaid Cymru holds only two out of 38 seats in Wales—the smallest number for any party in Wales.
I can understand why the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy wants to lurch his party to the Left. He realises that the only way that his party can gain any credibility in Wales is to try to be a better Socialist party than the Labour party in the valleys of South Wales. That is anathema to the people because if they did not vote Plaid Cymru they would vote for the traditional values for which the Conservative party stands.
The people of Wales realise that the answer to their problems rests with remaining a close and integral part of the United Kingdom. Only as part of the United Kingdom can we have a regional policy. Plaid Cymru policies would isolate Wales with all the terrors and misery that that would occasion to the Welsh people. Fortunately, after the next election that party will not have the chance to do that.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I want to refer again to the European regional development fund report. Government reports seem to be helped when they are leaked. I hope that more Ministers will take the trouble to read the documentation submitted to Europe. I wonder whether the report needs 17 volumes to spell out that most people outwith the home counties know only too well about employment and industrial or housing and social issues.
Ministers have said that the reports were compiled mainly by the local authorities, but they carry the Government's rubber stamp and shame in their content. Of course, they argue for as much resource as possible from the European Community but regional policy does not really matter to this Government, north of Blaby. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Conservative predecessor believe in a fiscal blood-letting for the northern half of the United Kingdom.
My criticism of the Government's economic policy is of their total mismanagement of untold benefits. I am thinking of North sea oil revenues, the proceeds from the sales of public assets and a parliamentary majority in both Houses which leaves few legislative uncertainties.
The Government show absolutely no political commitment to Scotland. We heard the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) upstaging the leader of the Liberal party when we last debated industry in the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Member for Eastwood spoke of the Secretary of State for Scotland giving Ernest Saunders a dressing-down and about what was going to happen if he did not locate Guinness in Scotland. What has happened? Just a lot of political waffle from the Secretary of State. The leader of the SNP talked about Scotland having a greater share of higher paid employment and he focused on the need for more headquarters to be located in Scotland—as they should be—and in Wales. Reference was made to the need for better communications between the north and the south of Wales. Having travelled in the Principality, I can understand that.
We recently received a brochure about the M25. I say good luck to greater London, which is having this marvellous investment, but it is a great deal cheaper to build a mile of motorway and extend the M74 or the connections to Scotland and improve the connections in Wales than it is to improve the infrastructure in the metropolis.
Over the past decade, Glasgow has been trying to create a new role to overcome the problems of the recession in manufacturing in the west of Scotland. There have been a number of ego boosters such as the Burrell gallery, which was approved by the last Labour Government, the Scottish Exhibition Centre—to which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) referred, but which I suggest in my cynicism owed more than a little to the by-election timing — and the city of culture nomination for 1990, for which the Government will not give any additional funding to Glasgow. All those are very helpful, although they are not compensating for the job losses in manufacturing. They do not appear to be denting the unemployment total, which now stands at 77,000 in the city of Glasgow and 200,000 in Strathclyde. They are also not overcoming the essential problem of diminished household incomes. If there were more people in jobs in the west of Scotland, and more people in better jobs, that would help both the public and the private sectors because it would boost both the manufacturing and service sectors.
I think that we should become a little more self-interested in Scotland. Earlier this year I noted that Strathclyde regional council pension fund, which is very substantial, was investing in high-tech in Hemel Hempstead. I wrote to the chief executive and I understand that the trustees are now taking a more earnest attitude to these matters. It is a bit much that such pension fund development should not be happening on our own doorstep.
The report identifies housing estates and their lack of environment, maintenance and repair besides the problem of youth unemployment and the lack of social and recreational facilities. It is ironic that it spells out in such detail the amount of vacant land and derelict industrial buildings in the Glasgow area, when there are grants available for people who want to plant trees. It might be


better to have a couple of forests in parts of Glasgow so as to obtain grants—the only trouble is that the grants are not available to the public sector.
I do not regard regional policy as being an act of charity; it is an act of Government responsibility. The Government are not exercising that responsibility. They should be worried about the extent to which there is overdevelopment of land in parts of southern England, which is detracting from environmental considerations. Reference has been made to the cost of that development, but what about the difficulty of getting into and out of London? There is even talk of another air terminal at Heathrow, but cattle are sometimes treated better than the travellers going backwards and forwards between central London and Heathrow. The problem is one of over-concentration in the south.
This Government's regional policy is pure farce. The Minister said that we were looking for fair shares. Let us see more evidence of that in the policies that the Government pursue, quite apart from the 17 volumes that have been shipped over the Channel to Brussels.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The Plaid Cymru and Scottish Nationalist parties are glad that we selected this day and this topic for debate. It has been a lively debate, not least because certain Conservative Members are becoming very excited about the prospect of having to face Plaid Cymru and the SNP at the coming general election. I shall not spend time responding to the hysterical speeches of the hon. Members for Moray (Mr. Pollock) and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), because I want to address the central issues of regional policy, which neither hon. Member did.
I want to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) about the regional policy being, not an act of charity, but an act of Government responsibility. If anything has been shown by this debate, it is the lack of Government responsibility for the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) cited the levels of public expenditure in Scotland per capita over and above the average for Great Britain, as though that were some great act of Government charity and benefit for Scotland. Yet the expenditure levels for social security, unemployment, housing and other social requirements, where they are higher, are so only because the need is greater. The whole point about regional policy is that its purpose is to correct imbalance rather than to provide charity for one region over another.
That relates to the specific point made by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), that we should view EEC expenditure in Britain, not as being in place of United Kingdom Treasury expenditure, but as additional to it, because there is a direct link between the regional input of the EEC fund and the regions affected by it. I am sure that all Opposition Members support that view.
The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) referred to the glossy brochure about Labour's programme — which is now available in the shops —which he described as imaginative. Some of us are interested in the small print of the imaginative Labour programme. We want to know how many of the 1 million

jobs which the Labour party says it will create during its first two years in government will be created in the regions of England, Scotland and Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) dealt specifically with the role of the development agencies. I wish to refer to the Mid-Wales Development Agency, whose role the Government have undermined by changing the boundaries of regional policy. It makes nonsense to have an agency with specific responsibility for an area when that area does not qualify for the whole range of regional aid.
The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), in a characteristic speech, quoted the experience of his constituency. The submission to the ERDF says, in reference to Clwyd:
While the recent gains are encouraging, they have not, however, offset the major job losses of the period up to the 1980's. Furthermore job gains and job losses have not always balanced in individual areas within the profile area.
That sums up the whole argument. The new jobs that have been created since 1979 do not in any way make up for the massive job losses in basic industries during that period.
We must consider the way in which infrastructure investment is an integral part of regional policy. That was stressed by the hon. Member for Maryhill and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon, who called for additional road expenditure in Wales. Regional policy must be seen in the context of the British economy during the past few decades. There was a period when regional economists, and even Government Ministers, used to make speeches as though the so-called regional problems were improving, if not disappearing.
Since 1979 we have seen a return to the geography of the great depression of the 1930s, with the addition of a new generation of depressed areas to the map of the 1930s —the English regions of the west midlands, the northwest and the inner cities. That has been superimposed on the traditional division — the so-called north-south divide, which is also an east-west divide. It is a divide betwen nations, regions and classes in Britain. Whatever set of indicators we take, whether it is direct unemployment, level of income, educational opportunity, or the social indicators of health care, housing or perinatal mortality, or inward of outward migration, the league table is always the same. Northern Ireland is always at the top, with its bitter and tragic history, with Wales and the north and north-west of England vying with Scotland for second place. If there have been changes in the league table, as in some figures for Scotland, it is because other areas have declined more. Always the south-east of England is at the bottom of the inequality league. That always masks the inequalities of class, race and gender in the inner city areas of cities such as London.
Regional disparity has not simply been caused by declining major industries. The argument used to be that job losses were caused by the decline in coal, steel, textiles, shipbuilding and other old basic industries. In recent decades there has been an increasing over-dependence of the regions outside the south-east of England on branch plants that have no high skill functions, no significant research and development and a small job multiplier effect.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said, the real regional disparity is between the outer metropolitan golden triangle in the south-east, taking in Bristol, Southampton and Cambridge, and the


rest of Britain. In this triangle are the corporate centres, the head offices of companies, the research and development units, the marketing and sales centres, the banking, financial and computer services and so on. About 50 per cent. of research and development in private company establishments and in public departments is located in this area.
There is also the secret regional policy in Britain, which is the £8·3 billion equipment budget for the Ministry of Defence. Defence procurement and aerospace investment are as much part of regional spending as the official regional development policy. Defence procurement and aerospace investment are located mainly in the south-west and south-east of England. Whereas the official regional policy will have been cut by half between 1980 and 1987, the secret regional policy has increased rapidly. We need to ensure that, in our study of regional policy, public spending on defence procurement, which is not usually regarded as regional policy, is so regarded.
The effects of the higher interest rates and exchange rates, which have been such a feature of Thatcherite policy, should also be regarded as regional policy. They affect manufacturing in regions outside the south-east more directly than they do in the prosperous regions.
The massive decline of the depressed regions is set out in the ERDF proposal document. We have already heard the figures for Wales, and I shall not repeat them, but we are talking about job losses in production and construction of 141,000. We must have a clear statement from the Minister as to the status of this document. As has been emphasised in the debate, the Government cannot have it both ways. Either, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, this is an official document, written, or at least collated, by the Government, and therefore is in no sense merely a local government document, or it is not. Either the document is factually correct in terms of the profile that it presents of the relative prosperity or depression of the regions within Britain, or it is not. I hope that the Minister will respond specifically on that point.
The ERDF document shows clearly the need for an increasing link directly between European regional policy and the depressed regions within Britain. We have a regional policy specifically based either on an attempt to regenerate the regions or on encouraging the continuation of disparities. The big lie that the Government have been trying to maintain is that if one relies on market forces one does not have a regional policy. Reliance on market forces is a regional policy and one aimed at increasing disparities between the regions, classes and nations within the United Kingdom. That is why we must go for a regional policy based on equality. That can never be forthcoming from this Government, and that is why no Plaid Cymru or SNP Member wishes to see the return of this Government to power.
However, we are also critical of the Labour Opposition's approach. Mild reflationary policies for the British economy as a whole cannot be effective unless their regional impact is properly quantified. It is not enough to talk of hypothetical jobs in Britain as a whole. There must be a specific approach to the regional dimension of unemployment and economic inequality through enabling nations and regions themselves to plan their economic development. That is why it is the political will expressed in our parties that can most effectively regenerate the nations of Scotland and Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): At the heart of the motion that inspires the debate is the United Kingdom regional development programme for 1986–90. It is not the European regional development fund's report, as the motion implies, except in the sense that it will be published in due course by the Commission. I must tell the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) that the report was compiled by the Government in accordance with guidelines issued by the Commission, and it comprises information drawn from statutory bodies, including local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not mislead the House in any way.
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland explained, the document's purpose is simple. It is to provide a background for the United Kingdom's application for ERDF assistance. It is a factual account of the problems facing us, of what has been clone and of what needs to be done. As for the report being secret, as stated in one newspaper headline, I cannot see how the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) could have said or implied that when he was given—

Mr. Gordon Brown: I never said that.

Mr. Roberts: I am happy to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, because he was given a copy on 1 October by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw). I accept his denial. It was a case of some loose newspaper reporting. I did not attribute the word "secret" to the hon. Gentleman—it was in a press report.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Glasgow. Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) knows that there is a copy of this report in the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries. Many local authorities that have contributed to it have, I understand, received relevant sections of it. As for being a "devastating indictment" of our record in office, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his hyperbolical cliché, that does not fit anything in the report, nor show anything but the right hon. Gentleman's ignorance of its purpose. If we look at the amount of European aid received in the past, we can put the value of the ERDF document into perspective. Since 1979, the ERDF commitment for Wales has totalled £309 million. That is 17 per cent. of the total ERDF commitment for the United Kingdom, and 70 per cent. of it, about £225 million, has gone on infrastructure.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Is not the use of such words about the prospects for reducing unemployment as "gloomy", "frighteningly bleak", "impossible" until fundamental problems are resolved a devastating indictment of the Government's policies for the unemployed? Did the Prime Minister say that the report had been compiled from local authorities? Given what the Minister has said tonight, was she not misleading the House?

Mr. Roberts: What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said is in Hansard for us all to read, and she was certainly not misleading the House. I have said that the report is a factual document and I have described its purpose.
Since 1979, the annual receipts of ERDF grant have reached record levels in Wales. This has helped


development in a number of key sectors in the Welsh economy, and to date Welsh ERDF commitments for 1986 total £19·8 million, a massive 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom's total for the year to date. About £57 million of Welsh projects bids are also awaiting approval in Brussels. It is the securing of that sort of money that is the purpose of the report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches appear to have forgotten that they submitted a similar document themselves to the EC in 1978. I do not expect the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) to remember it because he was not a member of the then Labour Government, but the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who is absent from the Chamber at the moment, was a Minister at the Welsh Office at that time. That Government were supported by Plaid Cymru, and the House will recall that those were the days of the Lib-Lab pact.
Opposition Members would do well to remember their own document of 1978 before attacking the Government and the current draft of the report. The prospects outlined in the 1978 document were pretty bleak and I shall be kind and give only a flavour of it. One passage read:
The structural weaknesses in local economies, arising mainly from their reliance on a narrow industrial base, can only be remedied over a long period of time.
When referring specifically to Wales, it stated:
Unemployment has remained persistently high, averaging about 11/2; times that of the United Kingdom as a whole. Activity rates are low, particularly for women".
This picture of the north-east of Wales—the area of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside—is as gloomy as any of his speeches. It is as follows:
Unemployment over recent years has increased substantially".
The Labour Government's report went on to talk of
uncertainty about the future of the area with its dependence on a narrow manufacturing base centred on the steel, textile and aircraft industries.
That was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). Have Opposition Members forgotten that report and all its gloomy forecasts? What a contrast there is between what the 1978 document said about the north-east of Wales and what is said in our document in 1986. Our report states:
Job gains at new manufacturing plants since 1981 have more than offset job opportunities lost as a result of plant closures during the same period.
I can tell Opposition Members that the 1978 report merits further study on their part.
The nub of the debate is regional policy, and the Government's tremendous achievements are recorded in the report. I must tell the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), for Maryhill and for Meirionydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) the facts about Wales. I hope that they find them dynamic enough for their taste. Since April 1979, some £657 million in regional development grants has been provided and £271 million in selective assistance has been offered in Wales. Since the introduction of the new regional policy regime in November 1984, 1,242 projects have been approved for regional development grants. This represents a total investment of £260 million with the prospect of 19,000 jobs. As for selective assistance, offers have been made and accepted for 166

projects, leading to a total investment of £218 million with the prospect of 6,000 new jobs and the safeguarding of 3,500 others.

Mr. Wigley: rose—

Mr. Roberts: Since 1979, we have spent over £700 million on road construction in Wales—this issue was raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon—to provide 22 miles of motorway and 84 miles of trunk roads. I must answer what has been said in the debate in these final 10 minutes.

Mr. Wigley: rose—

Mr. Roberts: No. The hon. Gentleman should be interested in this part of my speech because he made great play of how much money was or was not spent on roads in Wales. I am answering a point that he made in his speech. I can tell him that 40 miles of trunk road are currently under improvement at an estimated cost of £270 million.
Since May 1979, the Welsh Development Agency has spent £296 million creating over 6 million sq ft of factory space and £77 million on reclaiming 7,700 acres of derelict land. Since 1979, Mid-Wales Development has spent £45 million on factories and on other services to bring new jobs to central Wales. Since 1979, we have approved £122 million in urban programme schemes, helping to safeguard and create about 20,000 jobs. Since April 1982, nearly £24 million in urban development grant has brought about a total investment of £139 million, safeguarding 4,300 permanent jobs and creating 2,200 others during construction.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Roberts: Since 1979 the Wales tourist board has helped create 2,600 jobs with £17 million in assistance towards 600 projects, bringing forward about £65 million in total investment. In the present year, the Welsh water authority — the authority was mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarfon—is planning to spend about £60 million in improving water and sewerage services. In two years' time this will rise to £73 million. Before the end of 1987, we hope to start construction on 10 further major road schemes, providing a further 25 miles of new roads at an estimated cost of £115 million.

Mr. Wigley: rose—

Mr. Roberts: I have not finished yet. Between January 1988 and December 1990 we are planning to make a start on a further 26 schemes that will provide 60 miles of trunk road and motorway improvements at a cost of nearly £280 million. It is no wonder that Wales is so attractive to foreign investors. It is no wonder that since November 1984 WINvest has received 83 overseas projects promising a total of over 4,200 new jobs and safeguarding 2,800 others.
Social investment, too, has been on a massive scale. Again, this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarfon. Since 1979, £367 million has been spent on hospital and community health capital projects. Capital spending on housing is 30 per cent. up on last year. Private sector housing starts are at their highest point since 1979. We are working on major new partnership initiatives to bring forward housing schemes involving local authorities, housing associations and the private sector. We are looking to the valleys initiative, coupled with extensive


road projects, to open up the valley areas to trigger off a series of co-ordinated activities by the people who live there.

Mr. Wilson: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 247.

Division No. 296]
[7 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hardy, Peter


Alton, David
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Anderson, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Heffer, Eric S.


Ashton, Joe
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Home Robertson, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Howells, Geraint


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hoyle, Douglas


Barnett, Guy
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Bell, Stuart
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Janner, Hon Greville


Bidwell, Sydney
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
John, Brynmor


Boyes, Roland
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Kennedy, Charles


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leithj
Lamond, James


Buchan, Norman
Leadbitter, Ted


Caborn, Richard
Leighton, Ronald


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Canavan, Dennis
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Livsey, Richard


Cartwright, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clay, Robert
Loyden, Edward


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McCartney, Hugh


Coleman, Donald
McGuire, Michael


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Maclennan, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
McNamara, Kevin


Crowther, Stan
McTaggart, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tarn
Madden, Max


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Marek, Dr John


Deakins, Eric
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dewar, Donald
Martin, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Maxton, John


Dobson, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dormand, Jack
Meacher, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Michie, William


Dubs, Alfred
Mikardo, Ian


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eadie, Alex
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Nellist, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
O'Brien, William


Fisher, Mark
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flannery, Martin
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Park, George


Foulkes, George
Parry, Robert


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Patchett, Terry


Garrett, W. E.
Pendry, Tom


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gourlay, Harry
Prescott, John


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Randall, Stuart


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)





Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Robertson, George
Strang, Gavin


Rogers, Allan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tinn, James


Rowlands, Ted
Wainwright, R.


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Wareing, Robert


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Welsh, Michael


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
White, James


Short, Mrs (W'hampt'n NE)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Gordon Wilson and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Dafydd Wigley.


Steel, Rt Hon David



NOES


Adley, Robert
Dover, Den


Aitken, Jonathan
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Robert


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Ancram, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Arnold, Tom
Eggar, Tim


Ashby, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Farr, Sir John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Favell, Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Best, Keith
Fox, Sir Marcus


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Freeman, Roger


Blackburn, John
Fry, Peter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Galley, Roy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gorst, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gow, Ian


Bright, Graham
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brinton, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Greenway, Harry


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gregory, Conal


Browne, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bruinvels, Peter
Grist, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Ground, Patrick


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Rt Hon M, (W'ton S)
Harvey, Robert


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Chope, Christopher
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, J.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hayward, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Heddle, John


Conway, Derek
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon
Hickmet, Richard


Cope, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Couchman, James
Hill, James


Cranborne, Viscount
Hind, Kenneth


Crouch, David
Hirst, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Dorrell, Stephen
Holt, Richard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Howard, Michael






Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Marlow, Antony


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Mates, Michael


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Mather, Carol


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hunter, Andrew
Mellor, David


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Merchant, Piers


Jessel, Toby
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Miscampbell, Norman


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Monro, Sir Hector


Key, Robert
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Knox, David
Mudd, David


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Murphy, Christopher


Lang, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Latham, Michael
Newton, Tony


Lawler, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Lawrence, Ivan
Normanton, Tom


Lee, John (Pendle)
Norris, Steven


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Onslow, Cranley


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Oppenheim, Phillip


Lester, Jim
Osborn, Sir John


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Ottaway, Richard


Lightbown, David
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Lilley, Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Lyell, Nicholas
Pawsey, James


McCrindle, Robert
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Macfarlane, Neil
Pollock, Alexander


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Porter, Barry


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Portillo, Michael


Maclean, David John
Powell, William (Corby)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Powley, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Price, Sir David


McQuarrie, Albert
Proctor, K. Harvey


Madel, David
Raffan, Keith


Major, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Malins, Humfrey
Rathbone, Tim


Malone, Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Maples, John
Renton, Tim





Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Waddington, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rost, Peter
Walden, George


Rowe, Andrew
Wall, Sir Patrick


Ryder, Richard
Watts, John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Whitfield, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Raymond


Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Spencer, Derek
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Squire, Robin



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Francis Maude.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the efforts and achievements of Her Majesty's Government in stimulating the economies of Scotland and Wales; welcomes the submission to the European Commission of the United Kingdom Regional Development Programme for 1986–90 as the basis for maximising European Regional Development Fund assistance to the United Kingdom; notes the references in that document to the significant steps being taken by the Government to replace jobs lost in the assisted areas and to strengthen the infrastructure of such areas; and endorses the Government's determination to tackle the problems of all parts of the United Kingdom by means of sustained and effective economic and regional policies.

Immigration

Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the Front Bench spokesmen, I should announce that no fewer than 30 right hon. and hon. Members have indicated their wish to take part in this important debate. I have no control over the length of speeches, but it would be helpful to all concerned if they could be as brief as possible.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move,
That the Statement of Change in Immigration Rules (Cmnd 9914), which was laid before this House on 8th October, be disapproved.

Mr. Speaker: With the agreement of the House we shall also discuss the following:
That the Statement of Change in Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper No. 584), which was laid before this House on 21st October, be disapproved.

Mr. Kaufman: On 15 October a visa requirement came into force for those travelling to this country from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Although the Government had been contemplating such a change in immigration rules for several weeks, inadequate preparation had been made for implementing it. In posts overseas, where ito was announced that 39 additional entry clearance officers were to be sent, only two were in place on that date in Pakistan and none in the other two countries.
Here in Britain preparations were even more unsatisfactory. It was fully anticipated by the Home Office that advance knowledge of the introduction of visas would produce a rush of people anxious not to become enmeshed in the bureaucracy of the new system. The Home Secretary has sought to imply that the visa date produced a rush of people ineligible to come as visitors but anxious to sneak in as subterfuge settlers. However, a large number of those who arrived two weeks ago were eventually admitted as bona fide visitors. Of those who were returned to their port of origin, it is impossible to know how many were wrongly returned since chaos at Heathrow prevented relatives from securing proper consideration of the merits of decisions in many cases. There is evidence from several of my hon. Friends to show that some of those who arrived were wrongly removed despite a stop having been put on their removal under current arrangements. In common decency, the Home Secretary should arrange to have the victims of the breakdown of his own administrative arrangements returned here at public expense. His administrative arrangements did undoubtedly break down.
Mr. Dellanos, assistant chief inspector at Heathrow, not only told me that a rush was anticipated but admitted that the contingency plans were indequate. The result was that relatives who had come to meet their visitors were compelled to wait for days without information. Some had to stay at hotels and others, without the means to do that, slept night after night in their cars. Others travelled home and returned to Heathrow day after day. All of those people, in addition to their anxiety and uncertainty, were put to considerable financial expense through no fault of their own. That often included a substantial loss of earnings which they could ill afford. The Home Secretary was directly responsible for those financial penalties on innocent citizens and I believe that in common decency he should compensate them for what they have lost.
The position of those who arrived seeking entry as visitors was even worse. Some, it is true, were accommodated at expensive hotels. It is deplorable that, in a Government who pride themselves on financial control, the Minister of State has been unable to tell me how much that all cost the taxpayer. Is he truly unable to reveal the cost, or is he simply unwilling to disclose the financial consequences of his own incompetence? Others were made to wait in a series of ante-chambers until the hard-pressed immigration staff could interview them. Some were held in large numbers in the gate rooms, which is where passengers usually await the call for departure. I saw them there and the conditions were grossly overcrowded. Some had to sleep on the floor. Some, when wanting to go to the lavatory, were sent in batches of 10 under escort as if they were prisoners.
At night many were held in a detention centre. Others were held in a youth custody centre. One group was sent as far afield as Canterbury prison. All of these people sent to penal institutions, whether admitted to this country or sent home, were citizens of friendly countries innocent of any crime. They were not even charged with any crime. The treatment of these people was shameful. We all know that they would not have been treated like that if their skins had been white.
Why did the Government change the policy? The decision to impose a visa requirement, which was responsible for these disgraceful scenes, will impose hardship on future visitors and their relatives— relatives settled in this country, often citizens of this country and, in every case but one, citizens of the Commonwealth which the Tory party claims so much to champion. The Home Secretary has advanced a collection of statistics to justify his decision. Most of the statistics do not stand up to a moment's examination. He cites the increasing numbers of refusals of admission as a justification for action. He cites a rise from 18,000 in 1985 to 22,000 in the year ended June 1986. Despite that increase—and the rise is offered on a very dubious statistical basis—the increase of 4,000 does not seem large against the figure of 8·5 million arrivals in Britain from non-EEC countries during 1985.
The statistical comparison is invalid because the 22,000 figure claiming to show an intolerable increase on the 18,000 figure actually includes part of the 18,000 upon which it is claimed to be an increase. That is an example of the statistical juggling in which the Home Secretary is involved. However, even if we accept these rigged figures from the Home Secretary, the rise in refusals of visitors from the five countries on which visas are now imposed is fewer than 3,000 in a 12-month period.
Last year the number of those coming to this country from the five countries as a proportion of the 8 million arrivals—those arriving from non-EEC countries—was 0·07 per cent., fewer than one in every 1,300 arrivals. In human terms of course the impact of refusals was considerable but in statistical terms it was scarcely noticeable. Yet that is the Home Secretary's evidence in support of his action. It was noticeable that there was a disproportion between refusals of people coming from those five countries and people from other countries. The figures which I have just obtained today show that in the year ended May 1986 a Bangladeshi had one chance in 20 of being refused entry to this country. For a Canadian the chance of being refused entry was one in 7,857. A Bangladeshi was 393 times more likely than a Canadian to be refused admission.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No, I will not give way because many hon. Members wish to speak.
Last Tuesday I alluded to such comparisons. With reference to people coming from countries whose inhabitants have predominantly white skins, a Conservative Member intervened from a sedentary position and called out, "They go home". The question is, do they go home any more than those people from the five countries to which I have referred?
Last Tuesday the Home Secretary said in another batch of rigged and selective statistics that the number of absconders, as he called them, in 1985 was 255 and that in the year ended June 1986 that figure had risen to 430. He did not say whether these so-called absconders were all from countries from which visitors now need visas. However, let us accept that that is what he meant. Let us consider the figures as if they referred only to nationals of the five countries.
It is indubitable that the alleged absconders amounted last year to 0·003 per cent. of the 8·5 million non-EEC arrivals in this country. That is one in every 33,333. If we consider arrivals at Heathrow alone, the figure was 0·005 per cent., one in more than 19,000. I would not have said that those proportions were a great menace to the stability of the state or of our society. However, it may be claimed that, tiny though the figures may be, they may be much higher than for those of white or white-dominated countries and therefore they are statistically significant.
In a parliamentary question last week my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) asked for information about over-stayers. Over-stayers are not precisely the same as absconders, the definitions are different and are obtained in different ways, but nevertheless they are roughly comparable. My hon. Friend wanted information on over-stayers from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. She asked for the numbers of people from those countries not known to have returned to their country of origin within the time limit specified within their original admission. The Minister of State provided this illuminating reply:
Recordings of landings and embarkations from these, as from other nationalities, is selective.
Yes, it is selective. The Minister continued:
information is not available as to numbers or proportions within these totals not known to have left at the end of their permitted stay.
We have absolutely no idea of the number of over-stayers from these countries. The numbers may be small or substantial. We simply do not know. The Minister of State in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock made a confident assertion:
We have no reason to believe that the overwhelming majority of visitors to this country do not leave at the end of their stay."—[Official Report, 21 October 1986; Vol. 102, c. 801.]
He has no justification, rationality, information or evidence for that assertion. He simply offers it as a hunch about people from those white countries. However, from the Home Secretary's statistics about absconders, we have no reason to believe that the overwhelming majority of visitors from the five countries on which visas are being imposed do not leave at the end of their stay. From the statistics of absconders which the Home Secretary presented to the House, if we accept them for the purposes

of this argument, we see that of visitors to this country from those five countries, 99·95 per cent. return home. I would have thought that 99·95 per cent. was an overwhelming majority. However, it does not seem to be enough for the Government. The 400 or so people whom the Government say are absconders unfortunately, for them, have black faces. Yet we do not know how accurate those tiny figures of absconders are.
The way in which those figures are compiled was set out for me in a parliamentary answer from the Minister of State. That explanation gives no confidence in their reliability. The figures are an aggregate of the different kinds of guesswork from which the Government provide a total which they try to use as evidence of malfeasance of people coming here and not returning. Can we trust the figures? Are they accurate, or botched together to bolster a poor and partisan case?

Mr. Marlow: They are massively underestimated.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) had better accuse his hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. I have never known the Minister to massively under-estimate anything that would cause discredit to the black communities in this country.
Even if the figures are accurate, are they sufficient to justify creating a bureaucracy requiring the screening of 500,000 applicants, 99·95 per cent. of whom come here and go home voluntarily at great delay and great expense?

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Kaufman: I will give way. However, I hope that hon. Members will accept that I cannot give way again because of the many hon. Members who wish to speak.

Mr. Mikardo: I would not have intervened but for the fact that the point is highly germane to what my right hon. Friend is saying. Among the statistics on absconders is a recent case that I had — there may well be others. A chap was called an absconder because he did not turn up for his aeroplane—he had left voluntarily a week earlier and notified the immigration authorities that he was doing so.

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is an excellent example of how the Government rig unsubstantiated figures to prove a point.
The Minister of State said that the recording of statistics is selective. It is the Government's entire case, not just statistics, which is selective. A Home Office circular frankly stated last year:
It is impossible to draw any conclusions from the figures about the extent of overstaying by a particular nationality in relation to any other.
The Home Secretary is doing what his Department says should not be done. He is invalidly drawing conclusions which his Department says is impossible. We have to ask whether he is doing that to bolster a poor case and whether it is an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Why has the visa policy been adopted? The answer may lie in the manoeuverings of the Immigration Service Union, an organisation which broke away from the Civil and Public Servants Association five years ago, has not been accepted by the Trades Union Congress for affiliation, was banned from membership of the Council of Civil Service Unions and the spokesmen and spokeswomen of which have, during the past few days in particular, but for some time


also, been given to making outspoken statements that are often politically controversial and are sometimes racially prejudicial.
Last Tuesday, the Home Secretary offered the House statistics detailing the increase in the number of refusals of nationals from the five affected countries. He asserted that, despite the increase, there had been
no change … in the practice of immigration officers."—[Official Report, 21 October 1986; Vol. 102, c. 948.]
We have no more than the Home Secretary's word for that. His claim is unsupported by any confirmed evidence. We know that last year the Immigration Service Union met the Minister of State and thrust at him a series of complaints and allegations about the system then in operation. We know too that it was after that that the drastic rise in refusals by those same immigration officers began. We know that the announcement of the introduction of visas was made on 1 September — only 24 hours before the ISU was due to ballot on industrial action in support of demands. We also know that, even after the visa announcement, an ISU spokesman asserted that the policy change would not be enough to prevent strike action unless it was accomplished by a ban on intervention by hon. Members.
According to The Independent, the union was even more precise and threatening. A recent report in that newspaper said:
The union reminded Mr. Waddington of its mandate for industrial action if the strain on their members was not lifted. It said this could only be achieved by an end to MPs' representations.
The Home Secretary abjectly surrendered to that blackmail. It is a surrender by the man who, one month ago, in a most notable speech, denounced the machinations of pressure groups. He described them as serpents and said:
Members of Parliament and Ministers both in my view need to shake themselves free to some extent from the embrace of pressure groups and interest groups.
The pressure group of the 1SU has dictated the Home Secretary's policy on this issue.
The Home Secretary caved in to the ISU and introduced a visa regime. Last week, he first leaked and then announced a proposed change in the handling of hon. Members' representations—what has become known as the stop system. Last week, the proposed change to the guidelines was published. The relevant amended paragraph is so vague as to be meaningless. The key sentence in the new version of paragraph 3 reads as follows:
If the passenger was refused entry because he did not have the required entry clearance under the immigration rules, action to remove him will not automatically be deferred.
What on earth does that mean? Hon. Members need to understand it and have it explained because they will have to act in accordance with it unless it is amended and made more comprehensible.
That a removal will not automatically be deferred seems to indicate that a removal will be deferred in certain circumstances. What are those circumstances? How are we to be sure? We need to be sure because the interests of our constituents depend on these conditions being specified, and we, as representatives of our constituents, have a right to know.
I shall give the Home Secretary some examples to which I should like him to respond specifically. What about a family emergency? What about somebody in one of the

affected countries who hears that his or her parent is dying, at the beginning of the weekend when the embassy or high commission is not open? If such a person arrives here, will he or she be admitted? Will such a person's relatives have a right to ask their Member of Parliament to put a stop on removal if the passenger is not admitted? The Home Secretary might say that such a person will be refused admission and have to rely on his or her right of appeal, but, by the time the appeal is heard, the parent will be dead. Is that what the Home Secretary wants?
It is the same for somebody who arrives for a funeral. Unless a stop is permitted, the funeral will be held and the grieving relative will be forced to miss it.
What about those who seek asylum from an authoritarian regime? Are they to be summarily removed to a country where they may be executed, tortured or imprisoned, without a Member of Parliament having the right to intervene? What about the category of would-be visitors whose predicament was raised last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser)? I refer to students who come here to arrange their admission to colleges and who may encounter difficulties. Are they to be denied their educational opportunities because of lack of access to a Member of Parliament?
What about those who arrive with visas and whose visas are queried or challenged? Mr. Dellanos, the assistant chief inspector at terminal 3, told me that a visa does not guarantee admission to the country. The Home Secretary was forced to admit that during our exchanges in the House last Tuesday. We need to know whether a person whose visa is challenged will be able to obtain help from a Member of Parliament without being returned in the interim.
What about visitors who are already in the country? Many are already here having been admitted after obtaining temporary admission. Will Members of Parliament still be able to secure a stop on their removal by making the secondary representations that are referred to in the existing guidelines? Many who are here have been admitted not on temporary admission but for periods as visitors without visas, and many will in future be admitted for visits with visas. Will a Member of Parliament have the right to stop their departure or removal while an application is made for an extension of the visit that is perfectly permissible within the law?
What about returning residents who have been away within the permitted period? Will their Member of Parliament be entitled to secure a stop on their removal if they encounter difficulty on arrival in Britain? The Home Secretary says that they should obtain an exemption stamp to avoid problems, but an exemption stamp is not a legal requirement. Are people to be penalised for not abiding by the Home Secretary's advice, as distinct from a legal requirement?
What if people travel, acting on the misplaced assumption that they are free citizens and do not know that they need an exemption stamp? Will they be bundled out of the country without their Member of Parliament having the right and power to help?
The Home Secretary has not begun to think through these problems. He should show some humanity by retaining the stop rights of Members of Parliament in these and other cases, with which we shall acquaint him.
The new system and the removal of essential safeguards are riddled with potentiality for inefficiency, unfairness and injustice. We do not know how the appeal system, by


which the Home Secretary sets such store, will work. We do not know how long the process will take. I cannot say that I have very great confidence in either the speed or the reliability of the system, because today I received a reply from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office whom I had asked about the appeals procedure. He said:
… an entry clearance officer, in consultation at larger posts with his senior officer, reconsiders his decision in the light of the grounds of appeal put forward.
All of us will have great confidence in that procedure. The reply continues:
If the entry clearance officer maintains his decision, he prepares an explanatory statement which is forwarded to the independent appellate authorities in this country." — [Official Report, 24 October 1986; Vol. 102, c. 1006.]
So there will be a procedure for people who simply want to come here on a short visit and who are refused visas for reasons that will take months to resolve. [HON. MEMBERS: "It will probably take years."] I shall not quarrel with my hon. Friends about that.
These exceptionally expensive arrangements can be compared with alternative uses to which the money committed to this purpose could be put to ease problems at the ports of entry. Tonight we are scrutinising a policy change that is based upon the assumed need to screen 500,000 people a year — if we extend to the Home Secretary the unnecessary courtesy of accepting his selective statistics — with the aim of catching 400 who might not return home if they are admitted. Is it worth it financially?
The Government are erecting a cumbersome bureaucracy. Last week the Home Secretary said that there is no reason why an Indian should not need a visa to come here if he, the Home Secretary, needs a visa to go to India. Other considerations apart, however, if the Home Secretary is seeking parity of treatment, why is it that an Indian will have to apply for his or her visa at least one month in advance while anyone in Britain—either the Home Secretary or anybody else—can obtain a visa for India in 48 hours? It is an expensive bureaucracy. The Minister of State told my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) that it costs about £10,000 to maintain an immigration officer. We know also from another answer to my hon. and learned Friend that it costs £126,000 to maintain an entry clearance officer in a post abroad.
The Home Secretary claimed—some regard it as an extravagant claim — that 300 additional immigration officers are required at Heathrow significantly to improve conditions there. That may or may not be true. Even if it is true, the Earl of Caithness, who spoke for the Home Office last week in the House of Lords, admitted to the House of Lords that for the £14 million that the additional 39 entry clearance officers will cost abroad, we in Britain could have an additional 700 immigration officers. If we had 700 additional immigration officers, all the problems that have been complained about would vanish overnight. If the Home Secretary claims that additional costs will be involved in sustaining that extra number of immigration officers, let us be clear that the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office told my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in another parliamentary answer that for four of the five countries, in addition to

the annual costs, start-up costs alone will amount to another £6·3 million. The extravagance of this new system will be huge.
Last year, the total cost to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget for entry clearance worldwide was £19 million. Of the £19 million, the amount allocated to dealing with visitors was £12 million. Therefore, for these five countries the Government, to deal with a problem of their own creation, are more than doubling the amount that they are spending on clearance for visitors to this country.
The work will seriously distort the work of the missions that are affected. Last December, when the Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration of the Home Affairs Select Committee was considering the possibility of visas for visitors, an assistant under-secretary at the Foreign Office, Mr. N. J. Barrington, spoke against the introduction of visas for visitors and asked
whether it is worth setting up a system where you will be imposing a bureaucratic system on 90 per cent. of the people who do not need to have any pieces of paper or any trouble at the moment.
However, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have overruled the Foreign Secretary and gone ahead with this costly, unnecessary and discriminatory sytem. They have done it partly to meet the demands of the Immigration Service Union. They have also done it—this is to the particular discredit of the Home Secretary who likes to pose as a liberal-minded man — because they have deliberately decided to play the race card during the approaching general election. As the Conservative party becomes increasingly discredited on issue after issue —unemployment, health, social security, education and the record crime wave—it turns to its murky, perennial fall-back position and seeks to garner the racialist vote.
Despite the Home Secretary's bleatings about parity with India, these immigration rule changes are racially discriminatory. In a most revealing Freudian slip, a couple of weeks ago the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), said that the new visa regime was not racialist because it did not include the West Indies. We do not prove our anti-racialist credentials by boasting that a measure that affects only black countries is not racialist because it does not affect even more black countries. We prove our fairness by showing that our action does not affect black countries alone. But the Home Secretary cannot do that. He cannot claim, either, consistency in reciprocity.

Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No. I am about to turn to the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends. The Home Secretary needs a visa to go to India. An Indian now needs a visa to come here. The Home Secretary also needs a visa to go to South Africa, but a white South African does not need a visa to come to this country.
This measure is specifically aimed at black people alone. Furthermore, its authors are seeking to imply that these measures are not simply against visitors but are designed to control primary immigration. They say that by our opposition on these Benches to the changes we are somehow, as they put it and as their lackey newspapers put it, wanting to open what they call the floodgates of immigration. The Financial Times put it best in a leading article. It said:


The Government's decision … needlessly confuses the subject of tourist entry with the quite separate subject of immigration.
It went on to say:
It adds overtones of racial discrimination.
Last week the Home Secretary made a racially prejudicial comment. He expressed surprise at the number of young men who all happened to choose the third week of October to come and see the Tower of London. Does the Home Secretary realise that one can be a bona fide tourist or visitor to Britain without going sightseeing in London? People from the Indian subcontinent have a tremendous feeling for family, of the kind that I thought the Government admired. They save fares from very low incomes. They are sent tickets by relatives here so that they can make family visits to see parents, brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces. Why does the Home Secretary dismiss that commendable and warm-hearted feeling with his own aloof brand of patrician scorn?
In an even more loaded remark, the Home Secretary alleged that
the right hon. Gentleman"—
he was referring to me—
and his colleagues want to tear a hole in immigration control so wide as to make it meaningless." —[Official Report, 21 October 1986; Vol. 102, c. 951.]
What a squalid fabrication, deliberately designed to stir up nasty racialism.
Let me make it clear, as I have done several times in many debates in the House and in other forums, that a Labour Government will maintain firm immigration control which will be non-racialist and non-sexist. My hon. Friends and I are opposing racially discriminatory controls on would-be visitors to this country. Far from wishing to tear a hole in immigration control, we wish to make visitor control more effective by increasing the number of immigration officers here in Britain, at a fraction of the cost of the Government's new scheme. We also want to protect the constitutional rights of Members of Parliament to assist their constituents effectively.
Indeed, it is the Government who will make immigration control ineffective. The whereabouts of those who have been admitted, even on temporary admission, after hon. Members' stop procedures, are known to the authorities. Almost all of those people returned without quibble. If the Government are as suspicious of visitors from the Indian subcontinent as they claim, they ought to know that those who obtain a visitors' visa would, if they wished, be able to regard it as a licence to abscond. However, they will not do so because that is not what they want to do. Even according to the Home Secretary's loaded statistics, 99·95 per cent. of them do not do that. Those visitors want to pay visits there and then to return home, just like white tourists from whom the Home Secretary separates them in his own private apartheid policy.
Despite the Home Secretary's cynical resort to electoral racialism, I tell him here and now that we shall not be deflected from our beliefs. We shall go on fighting for the civil rights and the human rights of the people of all ethnic origins whom we are proud to represent.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I make no complaint about the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), either about myself or my colleagues, because

he had a rough time the other day and it is natural that he should try to recover from that as best he can. However, it is a pity that he should attack those who administer immigration control on our behalf. It does not matter what union they belong to. Indeed, they belong to different unions. They do a difficult job, and they do it well.
Today the right hon. Gentleman argued, without giving any proof—and the onus of proof is upon him—ghat immigration officers have changed their methods and standards of operation in the past few months, without any change in the immigration rules by which they are bound. It is unfortunate that he should make that charge without any substantiation.
The changes which we have made, and which the right hon. Gentleman has attacked, are, I believe, overwhelmingly supported in the country. The changes have been made, not because of pressure put on the Government by any union, but because of the pressure on Heathrow airport in particular. This pressure has been building up for some time. Any effective system of immigration control must screen visitors. The question is not whether it should be done—we are not introducing any new principle — but whether it should be done here or overseas.
Before answering the right hon. Gentleman's main argument, I should like to give the House the latest information. Contrary to many predictions, the new system is working smoothly. The airlines of all four countries are co-operating with it. Hardly any passengers requiring visas have arrived without them on direct flights. Of those who did arrive on 14 October, there are still some 80, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in detention, mostly Bangladeshis. All have been detained because a right hon. or hon. Member has intervened on their behalf—we are still honouring the system which we propose to change. Under its guidelines, right hon. and hon. Members have, as they all know, 12 working days from the date of their intervention to make representations. We are awaiting these. Much interviewing remains to be done of those given temporary admission after their arrival in the crowded days earlier in October. Since 16 October, 382 people have been removed to the four countries, either from Heathrow or Gatwick.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary tells me that the introduction of the regime overseas is so far working smoothly. All personal applicants are seen, most of them are issued with their visas the same day and many postal applications are processed on the day of receipt. A fair verdict on the scheme to date is "So far, so good".

Ms. Clare Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd: I shall give way once, but the hon. Lady will have noticed with care the practice of her right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton in this respect.

Ms. Short: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a simple, factual question. If everything is working well, can he say how many have applied, how many have been processed and how many have been refused? Then we shall be able to judge.

Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Lady puts those questions when the scheme has been in operation for a longer time, she will get the answers. All I am saying, and I know that the hon.


Lady will be pleased to hear it, is that whether one is talking about Heathrow or about posts in the subcontinent, the evidence to date, which she has not contradicted, is that the new scheme is working smoothly—a great deal more smoothly than the old one.
Without going back over our exchanges last week, I should like to correct one point which is continually raised and which the right hon. Member for Gorton put at the centre of his arguments today. Although he was invited to do so, the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question whether a future Labour Government would remove the visa scheme.

Mr. Kaufman: Yes.

Mr. Hurd: I am delighted to hear that, because it will confirm in many people's minds the thought that the Labour party is not serious in wishing to have effective immigration control. The right hon. Gentleman argued that the problem, on the scale that he described, could have been dealt with by employing more people at Heathrow and the ports. I believe that people who say that are either not putting the case genuinely or have not studied the problem.
The problem, as I tried to show last week, is one of surges—periods of relative calm and then large numbers coming in. It is nonsense to suppose that the latest surge was the only one. There was a surge in the spring of 1985, particularly of people from Sri Lanka. There was a surge in the summer of 1984, particularly of people from Bangladesh. In the early part of this year there was a sharp increase in refusals from the five countries now affected, and in the summer of 1986 there was a surge in the inflow, in particular, from West Africa.
Faced with that situation, however many immigration officers we were to employ, however many interpreters we were to recruit, however many new detention centres we were to build around Heathrow — however great the investment and recruitment—the old system was likely occasionally to be overwhelmed with great delays and inconvenience to all, not least bona fide visitors, their sponsors and relatives.
The right hon. Gentleman made great play with his percentages. He said that the mischief was statistically not noticeable. It was very noticeable at Heathrow, and not only to members of the ISU. The fact is that periodically the system came under intense strain so that the case gradually built up for saying that control should be practised overseas rather than at Heathrow to the great inconvenience, and worse, of large numbers of people.
An interesting point that has occurred to me during the past few days is that exactly the same problem confronted the Government in 1969 with regard to those coming in for settlement. I have looked at the statement made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), who then held my position, and I was struck by the arguments and phrases that he used at that time in making entry clearance compulsory for settlement overseas. He used exactly the same arguments. For example, on 1 May he said:
We have decided that it would be more humane and lead to improved efficiency if those with claims … have their cases scrutinised and decided before they set out on their journey."—[Official Report, 1 May 1969; Vol. 782, c. 1631.]

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Hurd: Of course, that is settlement, but the point is the same. What we have been seeing since 1962 is a series of administrative adjustments designed to ensure that our traditional on-entry port controls can continue with all their advantages for most travellers, but be supported by effective pre-entry controls where merited—in 1969 on settlement cases, and in 1986 on visas.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Hurd: That seems to us to be a much wiser approach than to let our on-entry controls crumble to the point where we shall be forced to the much more difficult and unattractive option of relying more heavily on after-entry controls.
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) because he has a standing and a particular interest in the matter. I do not intend to give way again.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. Does he recognise the important distinction between permanent settlement and those coming for a visit? Rightly or wrongly in 1969, in the debate on the matter to which he referred, I supported the entry clearance system, but I was not to know that within a few years we would reach a position where people could wait literally years before applying and before their case was decided upon. That is why many of us fear that, as a result of the system that he is introducing, there will be much more delay than he is now telling us.

Mr. Hurd: Of course there is a difference between visitors and would-be settlers. In each case there is a procedure, and in 1969 the Labour Government decided that the procedure in respect of settlement, precisely because of the pressures building up, should be conducted overseas, and we have taken an identical decision in respect of visitors.
The Opposition clearly want the control, in one way or another, to be relaxed and a higher proportion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—of those claiming to be visitors to be admitted. The whole thrust of the argument that we have heard month after month from the Labour Benches has been precisely that. What is the complaint against the immigration officers unless it is argued that they should be letting in more people?

Mr. Greville Janner: rose—

Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way.
Let me illustrate the sort of trouble that existed under the old system. I have given the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) notice that I would mention this. The sort of trouble that could arise under the old system is well illustrated by the case of a group of 16 young Bangladeshi entertainers who arrived here in October 1985. They sought admission for two months to undertake a number of cultural engagements. The Immigration Service did not believe their story, but the right hon. Gentleman, who has always handled such matters with great responsibility in my experience, made strong representations. In the light of those I overturned a refusal of the immigration officers and let that group in for two months. Of the 16, only nine have gone back to Bangladesh, one has applied to stay on as a student and the other six have vanished without trace.
In all, we have information about 11 groups claiming to be Bangladeshi entertainers, involving 201 performers. Of the 138 who were granted leave to enter, 26 have


embarked, nine applied for extensions and 103 have disappeared. Of the 42 allowed in under temporary admission, 36 have absconded. That is the measure of the problem under the old system, and that is the farce that we have brought to an end.
Let me respond to some of the practical points which the right hon. Member for Gorton put to me. Those that I do not reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will pick up.
Possession of a visa means that people can travel confident of obtaining admission. Under paragraph 13 of the immigration rules a visa holder—or a holder of any type of entry clearance — may be refused admission only in closely defined and limited circumstances—for example, if the visa was obtained by fraud, or if there had been some material change in the holder's circumstances after issue which effectively invalidated the basis of issue.
Under paragraph 14, immigration officers are told that examination of visa holders should not be carried further than is necessary for determining whether any of those kinds of exceptions apply. In addition—this is a crucial point—where a visa holder is nevertheless refused admission, he has, under section 13(3) of the Immigration Act 1971, a statutory right to remain in this country to exercise his right of appeal. No other passengers have that right, and it was deliberately intended to emphasise the special position of visa holders.
Therefore, anyone who is refused a visa overseas has the right of appeal overseas. Anyone who is given a visa, but is nevertheless refused entry in the circumstances that I have talked about, has the right of appeal here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I have just answered that question. It should be remembered that we have not insisted that people already legitimately here for reasonable periods need invariably obtain visas. There are exemptions for those settled here who return after less than two years away, and for those here for a limited but long-term purpose, such as work or study, who make a trip abroad.
This is the first time that there are such exemptions. There is no operational need to require visas in such cases and we hope that the exemptions will avoid unnecessary inconvenience. While people in these categories are exempt without any need for action on their part, we have introduced, as has been said, arrangements to endorse their passports confirming the exemption if they wish to travel and are concerned that airlines or other Governments may not appreciate the visa exemption. This is an attempt to be helpful. If the right hon. Member for Gorton thinks that we would be better off without that concession, we can consider that, but that is not what he is saying. If he has practical points about the effectiveness of the exemption stamps, let us look at them.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Home Secretary give way on that point?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Member for Gorton did not give way and he gave as his reason the perfectly valid point that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. The same applies to me and I have given way, I think, three times more than the right hon. Gentleman.
As a result of those arrangements and the steps that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and

Commonwealth Secretary has taken from abroad, bona fide travellers should not suffer. Indeed, their admission should be made easier. Those who would be disadvantaged by the new visa requirements are those who are trying to take advantage of the form of our control by turning up at the ports hoping to slip through and establish a foothold.
The right hon. Member for Gorton asked about the guidelines for the handling of representations by hon. Members. The great majority of such representations have been made on behalf of passengers from the five countries who have sought admission as visitors but whom the immigration officer has judged—and that is the crucial word—do not meet the requirements of the rules. Under the present system, an hon. Member may ask for a passenger's removal to be delayed while a Minister considers the case. Such requests for delay have always been conceded.
An hon. Member has the right to make representations to any Minister. That cannot be diminished in any way. The power to stop removal is a different matter. This is a unique privilege, with no parallel in any other field. I am aware of no other instance where an hon. Member may, without any argument either on the facts or merits of the case, simply stay the execution of powers accorded by law.
Under the new system, it would not be right to stop removal automatically if a passenger had been refused entry because he had arrived without a visa or other form of entry clearance, which is a clear requirement under the rules. In that case, the immigration officer would no longer be making a judgment on whether a passenger was what he claimed to be, but would be applying an objective test as to whether the foreign national had a visa. It is fundamental to the scheme that the decision whether an individual qualifies for admission is made overseas. If a person arrives without having obtained a visa, he should return to his country of origin to make his case.
An automatic stop on removal could become a device to enable those who have not established that they are qualified for admission to remain in Britain. Airline staff and travel operators would consider themselves to be under no effective requirement to ensure that their passengers were properly documented. To retain an automatic stop on the removal of passengers would frustrate the visa system. That is not to say that there will be no exceptions. Passengers, airlines and hon. Members should not believe that passengers who are refused entry because they do not have a visa or entry clearance will normally be allowed to stay simply because an hon. Member is prepared to express an interest in the case, but there may be exceptional cases where a passenger could not reasonably obtain a visa before travelling, and compelling reasons why he should be admitted to Britain without one.
As I have said, an immigration officer can already exercise discretion and admit the passenger. If that does not happen, but there is clear and compelling evidence to justify the exercise of discretion, it is open to an hon. Member to argue that representations on the passenger's behalf should be considered before his removal. The right hon. Member for Gorton said that he wishes to discuss how that system might work in practice, and arrangements for that are in train.
I shall answer two of the specific matters that the right hon. Gentleman put to me. As I said last week, there is no change in the arrangements or obligations for asylum.


Rule 24 of the immigration rules covers the case which the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) raised and which was echoed by the right hon. Gentleman. I refer to students who do not have a university place here but who are coming for interviews in the hope of obtaining a place. I hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman reconsiders the rule, he will discover that that case is provided for.
I must emphasise that we shall be prepared to delay removal only in the most exceptional of cases where the hon. Member presents the relevant facts at the time any representations are made. The House will not expect me to lay down particular circumstances in advance. Posts abroad will have arrangements to deal with urgent applications and they should be capable of accommodating such cases. It follows that passengers who arrive here without the required entry clearance must normally expect to be removed without delay. Of course, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and I must listen carefully to what hon. Members say on this subject—that is part of the debate's purpose — and we must adjust our practice in the light of experience, but we should not reinstate under the new procedure the system of stops which had some justification under the old system.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on the subject of an hon. Member's obligations?

Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to intervene later.
Opposition Members claim that they do not believe in unrestricted immigration. The right hon. Member for Gorton has a cheek to say that it is we who have played the race card. It was the Leader of the Opposition who, after a long period of relative quiescence on this front, went to India and made a thoroughly irresponsible statement. The right hon. Member for Gorton has been trying to sweep up after that statement ever since.
The extension of visa requirements, supported by the change in the guidelines for the handling of representations by hon. Members, is necessary to restore effective control. The changes will improve conditions for all passengers arriving at our ports and for all those in this country who come to greet them. There is increasing evidence that constituents realise that. The changes will help genuine visitors and hinder only those who would like to try their luck at establishing themselves in Britain when they have no claim to do so.
I was sorry that the right hon. Member for Gorton dragged in all this business about racism. He knows that it is nonsense. Let the right hon. Gentleman look at the list of countries from which people coming here are required to have visas, and the list of countries from which they are not. If the right hon. Gentleman can devise a racially-based principle on which those two lists are constructed, he is even more fanciful that I suppose him to be. The systems are not racist. They are constructed for operational reasons, and we have just had a strong example of why that is necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the two lists he will discover that his accusations are unjustifiable. The changes will help genuine visitors and hinder only those who claim to be visitors but who in fact are here for another purpose.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that we should distinguish, and that we should encourage the press

to distinguish, between visitors, the great majority of whom are bona fide, and those who wish to settle here. If the right hon. Gentleman supposes that that distinction holds without a rigorous examination of that minority who present themselves as visitors but who wish to stay, he is entirely mistaken. Our commitment to firm and fair immigration control is illustrated and strengthened by the steps that we have taken. We have shown that we are prepared to act in that way, and I ask the House to approve that.

Mr. James Lamond: The Home Secretary's speech must rank as extraordinary by any measure. One would have thought that at the very least he would have begun with an apology to those British citizens, including many of my constituents, who spent days on end in the most appalling conditions at Heathrow airport due entirely to the Government's action, and especially that of the Home Department.
A few words of apology would not have gone amiss, but the Secretary of State said nothing at all, except to suggest that it was all our own fault and that there was a surge completely out of the blue at Heathrow airport just prior to the imposition of the visa requirement. Anyone with any experience of the matter must have known that a surge would be created, entirely by the Minister's Department. Of course there was a surge. I certainly could gauge that I would receive many more telephone calls than normal from constituents expecting me to help them with their problems, and that expectation was realised. I received dozens of telephone calls during that period from constituents asking me not just to try to obtain a stop on removals of immigrants but to try to get through to the immigration department, whose telephone number seemed to be constantly engaged, to discover whether their relatives were at Heathrow airport, whether they had been removed to some other place, or whether they were in prison. Some of my constituents allege that their visitors were put into prison uniform and even handcuffed while they were detained until they were examined and questioned, perhaps for the first time, or perhaps on a subsequent occasion following representations by me.
It is difficult for me to express not only my anger about what has happened but the anger and dismay of my constituents. It has caused tremendous difficulties for the Oldham Committee for Racial Equality. Those who represent constituents of mine originating from the Indian subcontinent are adamant that the Home Secretary's action was racist. I try to be as open-minded as possible, and to act in the interest not of party politics but of my constituents.
The Home Secretary said that he thought that there was tremendous public support for his action on visas. But he later said that he wished that the press could distinguish better between those who come to Britain as visitors and those who come to Britain as immigrants, in that they want to live here. I agree that anyone who relies on the popular press for his information must find it very difficult to understand the position. I shall disregard The Sun, which is not even the gutter, but rather the sewer press, and which is, unfortunately, read by quite a few people who may believe what they read. But judging by the price, there are some newspapers that think that they are above the


gutter press but whose journalists do not understand the situation or deliberately set out to confuse the public. I think, for example, of the Sunday Express.

Mr. Winnick: Did my hon. Friend see the article in yesterday's edition of the Sunday Express? In it, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) accuses Labour Members of operating a corrupt system because they may contact the immigration authorities if the sponsor's Member of Parliament refuses to do so. Is that not a grave charge to make against us, and is it not playing the race card to the full?

Mr. Lamond: My hon. Friend has reinforced my point. I read that article, and was appalled by it, because the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) understands the situation. Consequently, the excuse that could be made for others who write for the Sunday Express, that they do not quite understand what they are talking about, cannot apply in his case.

Mr. George Gardiner: When the hon. Gentleman read that article, did he not realise that it began by citing the assertion made in India by the Leader of the Opposition that a Labour Government would repeal the 1971 and 1981 Acts? Those are the twin pillars of entry control, yet he did not make any mention of what structure was to replace them. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what that structure is to be?

Mr. Lamond: I apologise for allowing both of those interventions. I am trying to be brief, and I had not intended to refer to that article. However, it falls into the same category as the article that appeared on the front page of the Sunday Express on 19 October. It said:
As Britain began yesterday to send back some of the thousands of immigrants"—
immigrants, not visitors—
who tried to beat new tougher visa regulations the frightening costs of absorbing the new wave began to emerge.
But it cannot be that difficult to absorb visitors. Not long ago the Prime Minister went on television to beg the Americans to return here after they had been frightened off because we had allowed America to use this country as a base for an attack against Libya. Millions of American visitors are to be made welcome, but there is some problem about "absorbing" visitors from the Indian subcontinent.
The article continued:
Many of the Asians arriving here are homeless,
What does that mean? How can they possibly have homes if they are visitors? The article goes on:
and tend to head for the areas where they have friends or relatives".
Of course those people go to their relatives or friends. They go to areas such as Oldham where their sponsors live. That is where they are to live and be supported. Those guarantees have to be given before they are allowed into the country as visitors.
I can only imagine that Mr. Eric Flounders, leader of the Liberal-controlled council in Tower Hamlets, was misled by a Mr. Andrew Alderson's questioning, because according to the latter's disgraceful article, Mr. Flounders said:
We are simply not able to deal with a problem of this size. No local authority could.
But no local authority is required to deal with any such problem. The article continues:

Council leaders up and down the country have expressed concern at how people go to already overcrowded areas to stay with 'relatives' "—
the author has used quotation marks as though those people were not really relatives, when we all know that they are—
and in months go on to the housing list.
That was a disgraceful and misleading article. If that article and the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) form the basis of people's ideas, it is no wonder that the Home Secretary should find it difficult to believe that people understand the problem. People are being misled. They should understand that most of those arriving at Heathrow do riot want to settle here but are still held up. If we could get that point across to the public fairly and squarely, it would remove many of the problems that led the Home Secretary to introduce this measure.
The Minister's office staff are exceptionally kind in the way that they deal with hon. Members, and I thank them for that. They have great patience, even though they have been placed in some difficulty by the Government. But hon. Members should not have to take up such cases. Perhaps the Secretary of State thinks that he can fool us into believing that everything will go well now that visas have been introduced. But the fact that the great bulk of those arriving here will have visas means nothing. It will show only that those trickling through have visas. Yet I believe that great difficulties will arise. For example, Bangladesh will not have the resources to enable it to deal expeditiously with visa applications.
The problem the Home Secretary perceives is largely of his own making, particularly in the past few weeks. If the work is shifted to Bangladesh or India without any adequate resources to enable them to deal with it, there will be problems at the other end. Many people come to visit relatives here, and have a different idea of what a holiday means. For example, it would be unusual for an hon. Member to visit relatives in the United States for six months, but it would not be unusual for someone from the Indian subcontinent to want to visit his relatives for that long. Yet people are often stopped and prevented from coming in as visitors because they may wish to stay in Britain for three, four, five or six months. They are asked how long they want to stay here, but they may not have discussed that in precise terms with their relatives.
In Oldham there is one family with 300 relatives. No one should be surprised at that because people come to Britain and go to areas in which relatives have established themselves and for that reason families grow in size. When somebody comes to visit his relatives he needs some time to see them all, but he may not know exactly how long he needs. If he says that he wants to come for three months and someone else says six months, that is sufficient for the immigration officer to say that there is a conflict, a discrepancy, and that that person will not be allowed in. It may sound extraordinary, but I have heard of discrepancies of even less than that that have prevented people from being admitted to Britain as visitors and they have been sent back.
It may seem to be a good thing to have an examination of people who want to come to Britain carried out in their own country before they embark on the expense of air tickets. But they may have to travel long distances to have the interview and to get a visa. They may have difficulties in their own country just as they have difficulties at


Heathrow airport. They may have no one to help them, no relative with a knowledge of Britain or, perhaps, a knowledge of the language to assist them in getting into Britain. They can have the help of such a person when the examination is carried out here.
I share the anxiety and distrust of some of my constituents who have hopes of relatives visiting them in future. I discussed this matter with such people before I came to a decision about my own attitude. By a large majority, all those with whom I discussed it are fearful and feel that their relatives, difficult though it is now, will have even greater difficulty in coming here in future. I cherish my right to assist my constituents with all their problems, problems like housing and taxation, and I certainly do not want to lose my right to assist them in bringing their relatives to visit them. I intend to vote against this legislation.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I am sure that the House will agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) in his tribute to the office of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for the patience, skill and fairness with which the personnel there tackle the enormous quantity of casework. It was the same in my time and I believe it is the same today. I have never heard any hon. Member deny that.
I listened carefully to the speech by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). One point in his generally unconvincing speech carried no conviction whatever and that was when he accused my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of trying to play the race card. At no point in this Government's tenure of office have they tried to play the race card, as the right hon. Gentleman put it. I am proud that that should be so and that there is no evidence in this current controversy to imply that on the part of my right hon. Friend. He is simply not in that kind of business.
I know from experience the difficult problem that we have to face in operating an immigration control policy which is effective and fair. It is a remarkably difficult task and it is extremely important that we should get the policy right. We will not get very far in discussing the problem unless we are prepared to face some of the facts. One inescapable fact is that there is pressure from certain countries for continued immigration into Britain. I do not want to embark in great detail on an analysis of how I see this pressure being applied, but from countries like Bangladesh, where the pressure is heavy at the moment, 10 or 15 years or perhaps longer ago there was for the most part a perfectly legitimate influx of primary male immigrants. We are now at the secondary stage and the original migrants are settled and prosperous and want to bring in their families and their relations. Under the law they are entitled to do that to a considerable extent, but there are limits.
As the right hon. Member for Gorton said, we are today seeing a tremendous family feeling. There is perhaps a natural desire on the part of those who have arrived here and have made it good to bring in their relations. Immigration control prevents that. It is that pressure that is causing the problems faced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It does no good to try to duck that and hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent

constituencies with substantial numbers of people from the subcontinent or whose origins are in the subcontinent know that this is the case.
How do we deal with the problem in a fair and effective way? The problem facing us in recent years is that if somebody wants to get into Britain without an entitlement to do so the best way is through a visit. As some hon. Members will remember, there was a time when we had landings at the dead of night on Dover beach or on airstrips in fields in Kent. Those things are a matter of history, and for a number of years people have recognsied that the best way of getting into Britain without authority is to come in as a visitor and then disappear. Of course, such people form only a small minority and nobody would argue otherwise, but we all know there is great difficulty in quantifying the extent to which that illegal entry is taking place. From my experience I know that this was happening a few years ago and all the signs are that it is tending to intensify. That is coupled with the phenomenon to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke —occasional surges in applications for visitors.
As the House knows, there are three ways in which we can approach the problem. One way is to have control or to have a tight examination in the country of origin. The second way is to have a rigorous appraisal of immigrants and visitors at the port of arrival. The third way is to go down the path of much more intensive internal control. I have always believed that the third of these methods is the least attractive. If we intensify internal control, we land ourselves with problems of race relations that we all wish to avoid. Of course it would be ridiculous not to have some form of internal control, but by and large it is better to have firm and effective control either at the port of entry or in the country of origin. That is the path that my right hon. Friend has gone down.
My right hon. Friend's decision to introduce a system of visas for certain countries is not in any sense discrimination. It is simply a pragmatic response to a problem which must be faced. We know that the system in operation has become grossly overburdened. In my time as Minister of State at the Home Office I received a great deal of sympathy for the enormous case load that I had to undertake. But the volume of that has increased almost beyond belief. In 1980 something like 1,000 visitor cases landed on my desk. I understand that last year some 4,500 landed on the desk of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. I am told that the rate this year is substantially higher than that. Nobody can argue that such a quantity of cases coming to the Minister for decision is a logical and rational way of tackling this problem.

Ms. Clare Short: The right hon. Gentleman is right that the number of cases coming to Ministers and Members of Parliament is heavy and has been increasing and causing a great deal of work for everyone. Given that only a minute proportion of those admitted on temporary admission and refused a normal visit do not return, is it not the case that too many people are being refused a normal visit? Should not the Minister give the appropriate instruction to immigration officers at Heathrow to allow a higher proportion of people in as normal visitors?

Mr. Raison: The hon. Lady does not understand what happens.

Ms. Short: I do.

Mr. Raison: It may be a wilful refusal to understand. When people are admitted on temporary admission they are, in a sense, under scrutiny. They must go to a stated destination, the time of their arrival must be carefully agreed and recorded and so on. It is well understood in the ethnic minority communities that people on temporary admission who do not return will cause a great deal of trouble on all sides. It is not surprising that the proportion of those on temporary admission who abscond is low. The problem of visitors settling in this country is most likely to arise from those who have full permission to visit, not from those on temporary admission.
Some people say that the system looks illogical, but that it may work in practice. From time to time it has been argued that temporary admission given on an extensive scale means that visitors may spend three or four weeks here.

Ms. Short: Two months.

Mr. Raison: Often visitors may spend a substantial period before returning to their countries, having seen their families. It is argued that, although the system is out of line with the law, it is not too bad pragmatically. That is not an acceptable view and that is not the right way to approach the problem. First, it is out of line with what the law envisages and, secondly, it imposes a tremendous strain on Ministers. Ministers are expected to work hard and the present Minister is as hard working as anybody else. But only cases of long-term, substantial importance should be referred to them.
Some immigration cases will shape the pattern of a person's life. They may concern whether an illegal entrant who has lived here for 10 years should be returned or whether relationships are false or genuine, or they may concern adoption. In those cases the Minister is faced with questions about the shape of a person's life: will that person live here or elsewhere? In such cases it is entirely proper to involve the Minister. It makes nonsense of the system automatically to refer to the Minister cases involving a short-term visit. It is equivalent to someone who loses a case in a magistrate's court asking the Home Secretary to up-end it.

Mr. Tony Banks: When will the right hon. Gentleman get the matter straight? We are talking not about people who wish to enter the country for permanent settlement, but about visitors. When will Ministers start to correct the terrible allegation in all newspapers that these visitors are coming to settle? The right hon. Gentleman has had ministerial experience. When people are refused entry and given temporary admission they are given a cross in their passport which blights them while the passport is in circulation and when they travel to other countries, so even people on temporary admission have a stigma attached to them.

Mr. Raison: I am talking about visitors. The position of the visitor who wants to come for a short time is different from the case of a person whose pattern of life is in question. It is absurd that the Minister should have to cope with the enormous number of cases which are not of crucial importance. If everyone is let in as a visitor, we shall be faced with the pressure of migration.
There is a way to approach the problem other than through the visa which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has chosen. I have often wondered whether it

would be possible to have an effective system of appeal for visitors which does not entail them returning to their country. A useful point which has been established in this debate, of which the right hon. Member for Gorton was wholly unaware, is that if one comes to the United Kingdom with a visa and is refused entry one has the right of appeal here. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not know that that right already exists. The question is whether visitors should have a right of appeal in the United Kingdom.
If a right of appeal meant that people took root here, lawyers had long wrangles, months passed and queues lengthened, that would be nonsensical. But it may be possible to have an overnight appeal system which could deal with cases the following day at Heathrow or wherever. I think that that possibility was envisaged some years ago and it is certainly worth thinking about. However, we must be realistic and admit that the practical difficulties of that could be great. There would be the pressure of numbers, the difficulty of hearing the appeal as quickly as possible and the temptation to spin the case out. Nevertheless, it is worth considering the appeal system over time.
When I was at the Home Office I put forward a consultation paper with many ideas, including the right of appeal for long-term illegals. Unfortunately, the reaction of bodies such as the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants was so hostile and unreasonable that we did not manage to make much progress and we have been left with the system as it is. It is worth considering whether the appeal system is as it should be.
The fact remains that my right hon. Friend must deal with the present position. I have no doubt that, by proposing visas for some countries where the pressure is intense and there are serious difficulties, he is acting from good sense rather than from any sort of racialist motive. We are already seeing signs that this will be a workable proposition and that it will be possible to handle the applications with the necessary speed. Clearly, if people must wait a long time in Islamabad, Karachi or Dhaka that will be a serious weakness in it, but providing the post can tackle the applications fairly and quickly, the measure will not impose great hardship. Moreover, the nonsenses that have been growing will be curtailed.
Let us not kid ourselves that the hon. Member's right to obtain temporary admission is part of the British constitution. We have an immigration law which covers rights of appeal, but what has appeared is a gloss On the law. To put one's hand on one's heart and to pretend that my right hon. Friend is aborting some sacred constitutional privilege is complete nonsense.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Nearly 30 hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Unless speeches are shorter, many of them will be disappointed.

Mr. Cyril Smith: The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that Ministers should deal only with matters of substance, but whether matters are substantial depends on whether one is the judge or the appellant. The matters that we are discussing are


substantial to all the appellants because they may be sent back to their country of origin without anyone reconsidering the refusal to allow them entry.
When the Home Secretary faced questions in the House last week I said that many of us viewed the imposition of visa requirements in this instance with considerable concern and suspicion. Frankly, I think that it is just another Government cock-up. It is 14 years to the day since I was elected as a Member of Parliament and in those years I have seen many examples of cock-ups from both Labour and Conservative Governments. This is just another monumental one.
The essential point about immigration and race relations laws is that they must be fair. To be fair, they must be applied equally to everyone, irrespective of race, colour or creed. If the Home Secretary had said, for example, that in future the nationals of any country that required visas for British entrants would require visas for our country, that would at least have been fair. If the Government had applied their visa requirements to various countries where more than one colour of skin was involved, that would at least have had an appearance of fairness.
However much the Home Secretary wriggles and says that if we go through all the lists we will find that they balance, the fact is that we are discussing an extension of the existing requirements. That extension applies only to people with black skin. That has inevitably laid the Home Secretary and the Home Office open to charges of racialism, and that is exactly what it is—racialism, pure and simple. It is a veiled attempt to prevent coloured people from coming here, and the Home Secretary should not have been surprised at the Heathrow influx some days ago. I do not accept that that influx demonstrated a desire to cheat. It demonstrated a real fear about the change in the system and fear about how people would be affected. The result was that they got here as fast as they could in an attempt to get in before the system was implemented.
Like other hon. Members, I have applied for many people to be granted temporary admission and I know of only two in five years who have failed to return to their country of origin. However, I have many—I emphasise "many" — letters in my files from the Home Office advising me that people had returned from temporary admission before being required to do so.
The Home Secretary must not wrongly state, as he did at Question Time last week, that hon. Members have had the power to change an executive decision. That is just not true. They have had the power only to ask for a deferment of the implementation of a decision until the case was reconsidered.
The Home Secretary said that in a case raised by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) he had overruled the decision of an immigration officer. I advised the right hon. Gentleman to frame the Home Secretary's decision in that case, because in my 14 years as an hon. Member I have never once had the decision of an immigration officer to refuse entry overturned, overruled or altered by a Home Secretary or his Minister of State.
Nevertheless, what is done is done and we now have to press for answers and for safeguards. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has pressed for some of those and I press for them again. What

will happen in an emergency such as, for example, a death and an urgent Moslem funeral? Is there to be a night and a weekend emergency service in our embassies? It is all right saying that people must wait until morning, but every hon. Member knows that if a close relative died we would not go to bed and sleep until 9 o'clock the following morning. We would be phoning the undertaker, informing relatives and so on. We must have an emergency service for people abroad who find themselves in those circumstances.
What guarantee do we have that there will be sufficient staff to cope as waiting lists grow? The Home Secretary said that the system was working smoothly. Surprise, surprise! After only 10 or 14 days, of course it is working well. All those who would have come during the past 14 days came before the system was introduced. However, it will be interesting to see the situation in three months' time and note whether grossly inhuman waiting lists for visas have become common, as has happened with those applying for permanent settlement.

Mrs. Beckett: It may be pertinent to the point that the hon. Gentleman is making if I tell him that at my advice bureau on Friday evening I had visits from two constituents whose relatives — making applications to come here not as visitors, but for settlement —have had notice that the date of their interviews has been deferred for a full year. It seems that the point that the hon. Gentleman is making about the impact on the rest of the system is valid.

Mr. Smith: That raises an interesting question. We must ask whether the effort to deal with visa requirements will have an adverse effect on applications for permanent settlement. The cases that the hon. Member quotes seem to suggest that that is the case.
How quickly will appeals be dealt with? We are talking about visitors coming to this country, not about those coming for permanent settlement. If someone wants to come here, he does not want to have to wait 12 or 18 months for a visa. His holiday or his need is this year and it is ridiculous to suggest that he should wait for months and months. Whatever the Minister may say about speeding up cases, he has said that inquiries will have to be made over here and we all know from our constituency experience what that can mean.
The public imagine that all that people abroad have to do is to come here and they will get in. I must tell our public that that is not the experience of hon. Members. People coming here for permanent settlement, particularly those from the Indian subcontinent, have to jump through an enormous number of hoops. I am sure that all hon. Members know of people who have had to wait for two or three years to have their cases finalised. It can be 15 months before they get their first interview. After that, they must have another interview, the papers are sent to the Home Office, which loses them for six months, someone chases up the case, and so it goes on. I have in my files many cases of people who have had to wait two or two and a half years for final decisions on cases. Many of us are very worried that the extension of visa requirements could result in similar problems. We need answers and clarification to all these questions.
I said at Question Time last week that I appreciated the kindness of the staff in the Home Secretary's office. I support what other Members have said in that respect.
I do not challenge the need for immigration control. I have always thought that such controls should be fair and related to an ability to integrate. They should certainly be non-racial. Bad immigration law is a barrier to good race relations. Things such as queuing systems, primary purpose rules and rules governing the admission of elderly relatives are obstacles to good race relations.
I want those relationships to be improved. I doubt whether many of those employed in the race relations industry help to improve them. My experience is that they often do more harm than good by inflaming and arousing passions that would otherwise lie dormant. Indeed, that sometimes applies to the Commission for Racial Equality itself. It seems to practise racialism in as much as it displays a bias in what it will and will not investigate. In my view, the basis of good race relations should be fairness to all. I reject discrimination and bias because it is unfair.
I do not believe that one can legislate to stop discrimination. However, one can legislate to implement discrimination, as the visa requirements prove. One can and should legislate against racial injustice, but in the end positive action rather than positive discrimination is required. We need action to recruit more coloured police men and police women; action to ensure more adequate housing and fairness in its allocation; action to create more jobs for all in our society; action to ensure that our social services and health services are adequately funded to ensure discrimination does not take place.
I hesitate to say this, but the Labour party's record on racialism is not lily white or pure. The Labour Government introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 which was blatantly racialist and which deprived citizens of the United Kingdom and the colonies who were not born in the United Kingdom of the automatic right to come to Britain. The Tory Immigration Act 1971, about which we now hear so much from the Labour Benches, was not touched between 1974 and 1979 when we had a Labour Government. Labour's record is not perfect.
I was a Member of Parliament between 1974 and 1979 and I had just as much trouble, if not more, with Labour Ministers about temporary admissions than I have with Tory Ministers. Let us not have too much humbug about racialism because it seems that one tale is told when in Opposition and a different story when in Government.
I hope that we shall have answers to my questions. I hope that we shall hear why more immigration officers could not have been employed at ports of entry rather than at points of embarkation. I also hope that the Minister will assure us that fairness will be the criterion and not limitation of numbers. We are not talking about visas for people coming here permanently but about people who want to visit their relatives —sons, daughters, parents, grandparents and perhaps friends. Principally we are talking about relatives.
I hope that the Minister will not seek to camouflage the issue by suggesting that we are dealing with anything other than visitors. I hope that he will remember that we are speaking of human beings and human souls.
I repeat that the new requirement is racialist. It is unnecessary. It is unfair because it is directed against one colour of person only. That is why my colleagues and I will vote against the rules. Fairness and respect for individual liberty and a respect for the dignity of men and women requires us to do so and that is what we shall do.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I listened to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) with interest. I have been in the House as long as anyone and I have had long experience of coloured people who come to the United Kingdom. I was a little disconcerted when I found that several countries were selected for particular attention. I should have preferred a visa system for all countries. That would be comparable with the United States system. That system is simple, operates effectively and does not require an enormous staff. If hon. Members wish to go to Australia, they will find a simple system which allows them to be checked in and out very quickly.
In my experience, when a person comes to the United Kingdom he wants to see his relatives in Coventry, Birmingham or elsewhere. But sometimes a visitor suddenly becomes ill and has medical reasons for staying on for a while. To my credit I have gone against the wishes of the Home Office. A man was put on a dialysis machine and it was essential that he remain here for treatment. That is an example of the problems that are generated. I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that we are dealing with human beings, who must be treated accordingly.
If we are to change the system drastically, we must be cautious and ensure we have the correct reasons for doing so. In 1985, of the 8,500 passengers who were given temporary admission after they had been refused entry from the countries concerned, 97·4 per cent. left the United Kingdom at the end of their time, so only a fraction of them went to ground. I am rather impressed by that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who has considerable experience in these matters, can confirm that absconders or those who stay beyond their time are few.
I always insist that I have an opportunity to cross-examine those people. I find that if they or one of the elders of the temple give me a pledge, there is no difficulty in returning them to their countries. The whole arrangement has been somersaulted and put on a basis whereby certain countries have to comply by a certain date, with other countries to be included shortly. Can the Minister tell me whether the system is to be extended still further? Will there eventually be world coverage? Can he estimate the cost involved if it was extended and the number of people likely to be involved in the arrangements?
I was impressed by an earlier suggestion that we could improve on the appeals system. That is probably an intermediate way to deal with the position. However, with the current arrangements, if a person goes to New Delhi and applies for admission, it is a question of the presentation of his case. No Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom can help him with that. He cannot come to the United Kingdom because immediately he arrived here without a visa he would be turned back. Nothing would enable him to remain here. In all the years that I have been handling these cases, I have found that these people do return home and do not stay in this country. I am not impressed by the number who actually go to ground. If we had a system such as that in the USA or Australia, we could simplify matters drastically and find the answers that we need.
I do not wish to speak for too long, but I want to pay tribute to the Minister of State for the way that he has handled cases over the years. I am glad that he has not been elevated from his post — or perhaps I should be


sorry, because he has done a remarkably good job. It is important that we have in post a man of understanding, and the Minister, like his predecessor, adopts the right approach.
I know that it is liable to be said against all political parties, "They passed this or that Act". However, we must remember that we are dealing with human beings. They are coming to this country for a holiday and are entitled to see their friends and relatives. They are also entitled to see a little of Britain. There must be fairly weighty reasons that the security services can provide if any of them should not be admitted. I find myself in great difficulty tonight and must decide precisely what I must do.

Mr. Greville Janner: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) on his important contribution to the debate, and also on having the courage to say what I hope many Conservative Members feel. Those of us who care about people know that this debate is about the treatment of our citizens and of their families and friends. Our complaint throughout has been that the treatment at Heathrow has been a disgrace to this country. The answer provided by the Government is to take the treatment away from Heathrow altogether and to shift it back to India and other countries. They have created a problem to impose a solution.
As the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North has said, there was no problem, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out in his most powerful speech, absconders are very rare. I respectfully suggest that they will not be less rare because the checking is done by post in Bombay instead of at Heathrow by looking at the application. I would be astonished if there were not more absconders rather than fewer.
The real problem is the treatment of our citizens and their families and friends at Heathrow, and it will not be solved by this system because what is happening is simply a transfer of the problem elsewhere. We are not discussing immigration, on which we have differing views, but the treatment of visitors. That treatment will become miserably worse as time goes on.
There are not enough interpreters or visa officers, so the Government have decided to have more officers sent out to India. The Government are meant to be concerned with costs to the taxpayer. I had two answers at the end of last week and I suspect that the Ministers concerned could not have known what the other was producing. I asked the Home Secretary
what he estimates to be the cost of the training and placement of visa or immigration officers at Heathrow airport; and what is the minimum, the average and the maximum cost of the employment of a visa or immigration officer at Heathrow airport.
In other words, what would it have cost to put in extra people at Heathrow? The answer was:
The information readily available is as follows. On first appointment, immigration officers undergo 10 weeks training comprising a six weeks course followed by four weeks desk training. Throughout this period they receive the basic salary in the range of £5,605 to £10,188, plus allowances. The average cost per place of non-residential courses at the Immigration Service training unit at Harmondsworth is in the order of £200 a week. Interviewing passengers from a number of countries, including in particular the Indian subcontinent, also requires the services of interpreters.

In other words, on average, about £10,000 is required to put somebody in at Heathrow.
The Government of business replied to the other question, this time to the Foreign Secretary. I asked
what he estimates will be the maximum and the average cost of sending a visa or immigration officer to India as a result of the Government's new visa requirements; how many such officers he expects to send; and what will be the total cost of training and sending such officers to India.
The reply was:
The maximum cost of posting an entry clearance officer to India is £126,000 per year based on 1986–87 prices. (This relates to Bombay, where costs are highest.) The average cost is £121,800.
I thought that a nought had been added on by mistake. We are all perfectly capable of doing that, particularly the business Government dealing with public funds in this sector. He goes on:
Twelve additional entry clearance officers are being sent to India at a total costs of £1·46 million at 1986–87 prices. Initially there will be no additional training costs because experienced immigration officers are beng sent to posts."—[Official Report, 22 October 1986, Vol. 102, c. 913.]
In other words, instead of £10,000 a head to do the job better at Heathrow, where one can see the people and the passports, it will cost an average of £121,000—at least 10 times as much—to do the job worse on the other side of the world. Why? It has nothing to do with efficiency. It has nothing to do with the taxpayers' pocket and neither has it anything to do with solving the problem of overcrowding at Heathrow. It is the Government's solution, determined as they are to impose it at whatever cost to the British taxpayer. British taxpayers do not know about this and I hope that after this debate they will say that the Government have cheated British citizens who want their family and friends to visit them and have cheated taxpayers generally by imposing a solution at 10 times the cost that would have been incurred had they done the job properly. The result is that the job will be done in a worse way, and I suggest that it is a disgraceful way of creating a problem to find a solution—to impose a solution — which is harmful, unkind, inconsiderate, inefficient and extremely expensive.
How is the pressure to be removed from the officers at Heathrow? Any sensible, decent Government who care about people would say, "We shall have more visa officers and interpreters at Heathrow." They might even say, "Let us remove the pressure from the Minister, poor fellow, and especially from his staff." I pay tribute to the staff, to the civil servants who do their best within the limits of the discretion which is not allowed to them to help in individual cases where they are able to do so. I have found that they act with persistent courtesy and patience in most instances.
I inquired how the job would be done where ordinary people were involved. In Leicester we are proud of our multiracial city. Life has not been easy and problems have been created, but on the whole people are living together well and are treated as people, irrespective of their colour or origin. In Leicester most of those who were immigrants and who are now citizens do not like being regarded as immigrants. They feel that they are citizens in the same way as the rest of us. Most come from the state of Gujarat. When they want their families to come, the families will have to apply for visas in Gujarat. How will that be done? I made inquiries about that and was told that the maximum distance that someone in Gujarat would have


to travel to apply for a visa in Bombay would be about 875 km. I was told, however, that many of the applications will be dealt with by post.
Most of us want to treat people equally irrespective of whether they are wealthy or poor. Most of the families and friends of my constituents are not very well off and it is too costly for them to travel by air. If they take a train, it will take two or three days to travel to Bombay. There they will have to wait and hope for the best. They will then travel back to Gujarat and have still to return again to Bombay. That will have to be done to obtain a visa, and the system becomes an impossibility.
I said, I hope reasonably, "If you insist on having this rotten system, what about opening a consulate in Ahmedabad, a place where you will be servicing hundreds of thousands of British citizens and their families and friends who will come to you on lawful business?" The answer was one word, no, or nyet, which is the Russian approach to immigration, emigration, visitors and visas. That should not be permitted in Britain, because we should apply the same standards that we expect of others and other countries when we deal with other people in our country, when we have citizens who want their families and friends to come here.
Finally, we have the removal of the right of a Member of Parliament to make interventions on behalf of his constituents. My job and that of my father before me is and was to look after all the citizens of Leicester, West, irrespective of their background, colour or origin, irrespective of whether they live on council estates or in private houses and irrespective of whether they were born in Leicester, Glasgow or overseas. The job of every decent Member is to look after his constituents. In this great and marvellous democracy we have access to Ministers in a way that my grandparents, who came from what is now a part of the Soviet Union, never dreamed would be possible in a country. That access is to be gained through personal approaches and questions and debates in the House. But, above all, access is to be found in the right to approach a Minister on any subject on behalf of any constituent who believes that he or she is downtrodden. That is our right as Members and it is being taken away. That is the ultimate disgrace of this evil new system.

Mr. Michael Shersby: This issue is of very special interest and importance to my constituency, which immediately adjoins Heathrow airport. The interviewing of passengers at this major port of entry is a matter which has for many years involved me personally when, like other hon. Members, I am frequently asked to make representations to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on behalf of visitors who are refused entry. Therefore, I am able to consider the proposed changes in the light of considerable personal experience of the way in which the system works.
I can speak, as can many hon. Members, from personal observation of the way in which representations by hon. Members have been dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend and his predecessors. Representations have grown over the years from a mere trickle to a substantial number. This is borne out by the increase from 1,000 representations a year in 1981 and 1982 to 9,000 this year. I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and his staff for the way in which they have handled those representations.
Not long ago, the House had an opportunity to debate the extent of representations. Hon. Members have been asked to observe certain protocols in the way in which they make those representations. Because of that debate, the existing system has become widely known throughout the countries from which most of those visitors come.
I know from personal experience that some—not all— visitors who are refused entry approach, via a relative, one or more Members and ask them to intervene on their behalf. As we know, this results in a stop on deportation. Frequently, the persons concerned remain in the United Kingdom for three or more months until my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and his officers have considered the representations and eventually made the necessary decision. I tell the hon. Member for Rochclale (Mr. Smith) that, in my experience, as a result of those representations, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has changed the view expressed by immigration officers. That has happened on a number of occasions. I heard of one such case only today.
Once an intending visitor knows that the system exists —many now do as a result of the debate some months ago—it is simple for those who wish to do so to second-guess the immigration officer's decision by means of representations by a Member of Parliament. The result is that many stay for three or four months, despite the refusal of entry. Many are subsequently removed because, after consideration, their explanation for coming to the United Kingdom is not accepted. In 1981, 13,000 people were removed. In the 12 months to June 1986, the number jumped to 22,000. That is substantial. It presents a clear idea of the burden resting on the Home Office in dealing with this difficult matter involving people who travel long distances to come to our country.
We also know that during that period—the past year for which figures are available — some 430 visitors absconded. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that that is not a large number, given the number of people who come to this country from all over the world. However, it is sufficient to worry many people in this country who feel that it is not acceptable that over 400 people have disappeared into the community over the past year. They are illegal immigrants and most of them would not be here were it not for the ability to stay which is secured following representations by a relative to one or more Members of Parliament.
Some visitors who have sought the intervention of an hon. Member have been admitted as a result. Clearly, therefore, there is a need for a system of appeal against refusals. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is providing for that where a visa is refused under the proposed new arrangements. That appeal is to be considered in the country of origin. It will avoid the unnecessary expense of air travel by intending visitors who do not have a proper reason for visiting this country. It will also ensure for the relatives and friends of visitors, the people we represent, that a proposed visit can be properly planned and that entry will be swift, courteous and without the risk of delay or, at worst, detention. It will mean that a visitor from, for example, India will be able to come to Britain for a family wedding without all of the problems that have arisen in the past when for some reason they have been refused entry.
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) raised what I thought was a valid point; that is the method by which an individual living in the


Indian subcontinent applies for a visa. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will give an indication of the practical arrangements for making that application, that he will make it clear that it can be made by post and that long journeys from one part of the Indian subcontinent to another are not necessary. I hope that he will be able to tell the House that there will be an efficient and swift method of dealing with applications through the post.
I am sure that any fair-minded hon. Member will agree that there has been some abuse of the system of approaching an hon. Member in order to secure a stop on deportation. We all know that that is the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) referred to a case last week during his remarks on the statement where he had decided, after careful thought, not to intervene on behalf of an intending visitor to this country. Within a comparatively short space of time after that decision the case had been raised with my hon. Friend the Minister by the office of the Leader of the Opposition. Doubtless it had been raised by another relative who lives in the Leader of the Opposition's constituency. The fact is that there is a certain amount of playing the system which amounts to abuse.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Shersby: I shall not give way because other hon. Members wish to speak and the hon. Gentleman has had a good go already.
Hon. Members will still be able to make representations about particular cases, although they will not be able to place an automatic stop on deportation.
I was interested in the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) about the possibility of some form of overnight appeal system to deal with those who are refused visas when they come to this country. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister may be able to comment on that when he replies. It has been said by the right hon. Member for Gorton, and even by the Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Gandhi, that the introduction of visas is a racist measure because it applies to black people from the Indian subcontinent and Africa. I have to reject that view. Why is it racist for Britain to demand an entry visa from, for example, an Indian citizen when India demands one from every British citizen? [Interruption.]

Mr. Janner: rose—

Mr. Shersby: If hon. Gentlemen will be patient I shall develop my argument. I will not give way to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) because he has had his say.
The same question applies to Bangladesh, Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. All of those are Commonwealth countries. However, if we are talking about countries which have black citizens, and Opposition Members have made a lot of noise about black citizens tonight, I suggest that Opposition Members consider the many countries on the list of countries which require visas from British citizens. Opposition Members would then find plenty of countries having black citizens in that list which demand visas from us. I have a copy of the list and any hon. Member can read the question which I tabled to my right

hon. Friend the Home Secretary this week. That will prove that many countries with black citizens demand visas from British citizens.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Shersby: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not give way. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
In fact, 83 countries demand visas from British citizens who wish to enter those countries as visitors.

Mr. Kaufman: How many countries do we demand visas from?

Mr. Shersby: In response to the sedentary intervention from the right hon. Member for Gorton, we demand visas from visitors from more than 50 countries seeking entry to the United Kingdom. If the right hon. Gentleman is not familiar with those countries—as I am sure that he must be—I suggest that he studies the list.
Australia is one of the countries demanding visas from British citizens. When I visited Australia I had to obtain my entry visa from the Australian High Commission in London. When I arrived I went through immigration control without undue delay. My name was entered on the master computer and when I left Australia from a completely different point from my port of entry, my name was taken off the computer. I do not believe that there is anything racist about the people from Australia, India, Bangladesh, Ghana, Nigeria or Sierra Leone demanding a visa from me to enter their countries. Nor do I consider that the United States is racialist in demanding a visa.
Each country is fully entitled to exercise control, by means of an entry visa, over who enters their territory. As I have said, Britain demands entry visas from more than 50 countries many of which have black citizens. The charge of racism is nonsense and humbug. It should be dismissed by the House.
That charge could only be made in such a cynical manner by the right hon. Member for Gorton in a speech which I thought reached an all-time low. The only conclusion that I can draw from his remarks is that he is cynically trying, by his opposition to visas, to secure the votes of British citizens of Indian and African origin. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, he will not succeed. Our fellow citizens want a proper system of entry which is fair and smooth running. I believe that the new system will achieve that. It will ensure the ability to visit the United Kingdom without the difficulties with which we have become so familiar.
With more than 37 million passengers having to be seen by immigration officers in 1985 and with the pressure most keenly felt at Heathrow, it is clearly necessary to take sensible action to ensure that people are not subject to delays of two and a half hours or more. Every time that I come through Heathrow airport from abroad, I sympathise with those people from all over the world who have to wait for an unduly long time. For those reasons I intend to vote for the Government's proposals in the Lobby tonight.
In conclusion, I listened with great care to the right hon. Member for Gorton about the Labour party's policy on this matter. He gave me the impression that it is the Labour party's policy to maintain firm and fair control over immigration. I was glad to hear that. I hope that he


will be able to clarify that point if he has the opportunity because I was under the strong impression that when the Leader of the Opposition was in India he said that the Labour party would scrap all immigration laws on the ground that they are discriminatory and racist. For that reason I was glad to hear what the right hon. Member for Gorton said tonight. He gave an important clarification of Labour party policy which many hon. Members will be glad to have heard.
When considering this difficult matter, which affects our fellow citizens and human beings from all over the world, we must remember that we must ensure that entry to the United Kingdom is not spoilt by the system that we have had to endure for the past few months. We should move on to a system under which people coming to Britain can look forward to entry without problems so that they can meet their relatives and friends or come here for a holiday or any other proper purpose for which they are granted admission.

Mr. Max Madden: It is clear that those w ho have orchestrated the campaign for the introduction of visas had two objectives. First, they wanted to reduce the number of black and Asian visitors to the United Kingdom; secondly, they wanted to remove the rights of Members of Parliament to assist visitors who are refused entry.
The introduction of visas is perceived as racist by many people here and overseas. It is clearly damaging to promotion of good community relations in Britain, and it has further damaged the poor relationship between Britain and the black Commonwealth. The Government have argued that visas will reduce delays, especially at Heathrow, and the inconvenience and difficulties experienced by visitors and their sponsors and relatives here.
The most cost-effective way in which to deal with the delays, inconvenience and indignities experienced at Heathrow is to appoint more immigration officers and more interpreters and to provide better examination accommodation. The Government could have taken such administrative action long ago.
Like other hon. Members, during the past two years I have raised in the House the question of the inconvenience and difficulties experienced at Heathrow. I met the Minister of State in early June to urge him to appoint more immigration officers and to take other steps to deal with the looming crisis at Heathrow. I was told that there would be 11 extra immigration officers. None were appointed, because they refused transfers and appealed against the transfer instructions.
Some immigration officers and Right-wing sections of the Conservative party have campaigned for visas for at least 18 months. During that time there has been a deliberate increase in the number of refusals. When challenged about that, the Home Office has been able to offer no explanation. In the first quarter of this year, one in five Bangladeshis, one in 19 Pakistanis and one in 25 Indians who applied to visit Britain were refused entry.
Visas are resented by people who want to visit and by people who are settled here. They will now experience great difficulty in getting their friends and relatives to visit them. Moreover, they will have to apply for visa exemption stamps if they are to avoid difficulty themselves. Visas add to their sense of alienation. Visas

underline their belief that they are unwelcome in the eyes of those who advocate visas. It seems that it is undesirable that they should have friends and relatives who want to visit them.
The introduction of visas is considered racist because their application is selective. That charge would not be made if we were also asking South Africans, Americans or Australians to have visas. The Home Secretary has today made one of the most inadequate speeches that the House has ever had to endure on an important constitutional issue. The fact that he skulked out of the Chamber during the debate demonstrates that he might have learnt something about the issue had he remained. It is also disgraceful that the junior Minister at the Foreign Office has left the Chamber. We have a large number of questions to ask, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has responsibility for these matters. It is therefore disgraceful that that Minister has left the Chamber and that he did riot hear the questions that were asked by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and by many of my hon. Friends.
This system is widely perceived as being racist. It will cause delays and inconvenience. Before the junior Minister left the Chamber he muttered under his breath that visas would be issued on the same day as applications were made. It is a pity that he could not tell me that when I wrote to him. In the reply that I received a few days ago he said nothing about the average waiting time for visa applications, and he could give me no information about staffing arrangements.
The guidance issued by the Home Office states that applications in writing should be made at least one month before a person intends to leave his country to visit the United Kingdom. The same rule applies to personal applications. Therefore, one cannot assume that applications will be approved on the day that they are submitted.
I have also been told that applicants will have to choose which application form is appropriate for them. The forms are printed in English, and I understand that one question is:
Are you a British Citizen by descent or other means?
It will be impossible for many of the applicants to fill in the forms. It will result in a bonanza for corruption. Many of those who apply for visas will have to rely upon assistance from agents in their own area. This will provide the bread and butter for the corruption about which the Government say they are so concerned and which they advance as one of the reasons for the introduction of visas.
Visa control is wholly discredited. Speaker after speaker in the debate has told us why. People in India and Pakistan now have to wait for six or 12 months for an interview and a decision on their application for settlement here. In Bangladesh they have to wait for 25 months. When the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), replies to the debate, we are entitled to an answer to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) wishes to have answered: what will be the effect of these provisions on the applications for settlement that have already been made? Is the Minister able to give a guarantee that none of these applications for settlement will be further deferred by the introduction of visas for visitors? We are entitled to a clear assurance on that point.

Ms. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Pariamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has circulated a leaflet about how


the system will work? It says that he hopes that the consequential delays over entry certificate applications for permanent settlement will not be too great, thus admitting that the new system will have an effect.

Mr. Madden: There will clearly be delays. The surges will continue. The administrative arrangements are wholly inadequate to deal with the surges in applications. If the same criteria are to be applied to visa applications overseas as are applied now at Heathrow, we may expect the same rate of refusals overseas as there are now at Heathrow.
Visas were introduced in Sri Lanka over a bank holiday weekend—again without any consultation, and still less without the approval of this House. The rate of refusals in Sri Lanka has increased from 0·004 to 8·5 per cent. Exactly the same increase in the rate of refusals will be found in the countries that we are considering tonight.
The clear fact of the matter is that the Government and the ISU resent Members of Parliament being able to help and that is why they have promoted this visa campaign and have been so desperate to stop Members of Parliament from being able to assist their constituents. We have seen that campaign aided and abetted by Britain's gutter press.
On 16 October the headline in The Sun was "The Liars". As The Sun is so well known for the fiction that it prints, rather than the fact, and as the stories are dreamt up by the reporters on numerous occasions, I thought that the headline was referring to The Sun, but it was not. It said:
Harassed airport staff told yesterday of the '1,001 lies' used by immigrants trying to cheat their way into Britain.
It referred to tourists who say that they have come to see the sights such as Slough and Bradford. Is it surprising that many visitors here are coming to Slough and Bradford, when large numbers of their relatives and friends live in those areas?
The paper went on to say:
Others insist they have flown 6,000 miles to 'see the snow' or to attend a family wedding — though they cannot produce an invitation and do not know the names of the bride and groom.
That is in no way remarkable. An immigration officer is quoted as saying:
The biggest lie of all, of course, is that they intend to go back home after their visit. They produce a return ticket as proof that they intend to fly back. But in many cases they just cash in the return half of the ticket and disappear.
We know from the figures published by the Home Office that that is nonsense.
The Daily Express of 17 October had the headline:
Soft touch MPs. Loophole that gave a licence to vanish.

Mr. Marlows: How many stops has the hon. Gentleman put on this year? How many apply to other people's constituencies?

Mr. Tony Banks: At least my hon. Friend is doing his job, which is more than the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is doing. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) knows perfectly well that he must not shout across the Chamber in that fashion. I hope that he will restrain himself.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That little worm over there said that I do not do my job, and I should like him to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not raising a point of order, he is persisting in the disorderly conduct about which I have just warned him. I hope that he will restrain himself.

Mr. Madden: On 17 October the Daily Express said:
New rules mean that if anyone arrives at Heathrow, without a visa, they will not be allowed to phone an MP to intervene and stop immigration staff kicking them out of the country.
That is nonsense, as any hon. Member knows. Calls are not made directly by visitors refused entry to Britain, and our interventions do not achieve what the Daily Express says. The article continued:
Before the clampdown, once an MP took up a case, the new arrival had to be given temporary admission to Britain until an investigation by the Home Office.
Again that is nonsense, as any hon. Member who has experience of such matters knows.
The Home Secretary, in his deplorable speech tonight, said that there were people who were in detention only as a result of stops that had been made by hon. Members. If it were so easy for those people to be released, why have those 80 people now in detention not been released? The Daily Express continued:
That could take months—and by then, immigration staff say, many of the immigrants have vanished.
Again that is nonsense.
I come to an interesting quote from a Home Office spokesman. He said:
We lost count how many absconded while their case was being considered. And in most cases at the end of the review the original decision to refuse entry was upheld.
Again that is nonsense. I wonder whether the Minister of State has called that spokesman, speaking with the authority of the Home Office, to account for the quote which appeared in the Daily Express on Friday 17 October.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The debate has focused on the Government's racist decision on immigration. One of my constituents, a lady living in Lemington, on the outskirts of Newcastle, is married to a Yugoslav citizen. They both worked in Yugoslavia for some time after their marriage but decided to come to Britain to settle. They both had jobs to come to, but the husband had to apply for a visa although he is married to a British citizen. He lost the job that he was coming to in Britain because of the delay by the Home Office over his visa application.

Mr. Madden: That sort of case is familiar to many of us. I quote again from the Daily Express, this time from the editorial of 17 October. The headline stated:
Right to end MPs' abuse of power".
The editorial stated:
Some politicians are thought soft touches, who probably help visitors with no right to be here slip through the immigration net.
Those words are characteristic of the coverage of this issue by the so-called popular press during the past few weeks. It is noticeable that the Press Gallery, with the exception of the Hansard reporters, has been almost empty during most of the debate. Many members of the press, together with the Home Secretary, could have learnt a little about this subject had they taken the time and trouble to listen to the debate, rather than writing misleading reports and editorials.
When the Minister of State replies, I hope that he will be clear about the rights of Members of Parliament. In


what circumstances will we be able to assist those who wish to visit Britain and who arrive here without a visa? How will hon. Members do that unless the Minister of State gives clear assurances that such people will not be removed within hours of their arrival, so that hon. Members have sufficient time to get information and to help such people and their relatives and friends in Britain?
I should like specific information on how Members of Parliament will assist constituents whose friends or relatives are applying for visas, especialy in emergencies such as family sickness and family death. How can hon. Members assist the relatives and friends of constituents who are refused visas overseas? How can we assist constituents whose friends and relatives are granted visas, arrive here and then wish to extend their visas while they are here? How will we help students? The Home Secretary garbled something about the circumstances in which hon. Members would be able to assist students, but the guidance issued by the Home Office, which the Minister of State was kind enough to send me recently, says that students must also have a letter of acceptance from the institute where they are to study and must show that they can meet the cost of their tuition.
If there are to be such effective visa controls overseas, how can any student arrive here without a visa? How can hon. Members therefore assist in any circumstances? I hope that the Minister will say something about students, because he knows that student bodies in Britain have expressed grave concern about the effect of visa controls on students and institutions of education in Britain.
Let the Minister be very clear when he replies. Will the Foreign Office provide the same sort of duty officer coverage as we have enjoyed from the Home Office for a long time? I pay tribute to those duty officers and to members of the Minister of State's private office for their considerable co-operation and assistance, but will the same facilities be available at the Foreign Office? Will the overseas posts be manned at weekends? The hon. Member for Rochdale raised the matter of night telephones, but will they be manned at weekends, so that emergency applications for visas can be made? Will our representations be transmitted to overseas posts by the Foreign Office?
Today I received a letter from a constituent, enclosing his mother's passport. He asked me to arrange for a visa exemption stamp to be put on the passport. If I send it to the Home Office, will that stamp be placed in that passport? I, along with many other hon. Members, will frequently be asked for that facility. I understand that the Home Office suggested that, on departure, immigration officers should be able to stamp passengers' passports with a right to return to Britain without a visa. I also understand that the Minister's good friends in the Immigration Service flatly refuse to co-operate in such a scheme. Will the Minister have the courage to go back to his good friends in the Immigration Service Union and say that such a facility would be extremely helpful to overseas

nationals who are settled in this country, and who do not want to have to apply in writing or in person to London or to their nearest passport inquiry office to get an exemption stamp placed on their passports? The vast majority of these people find the whole thing insulting anyway.
I condemn the Government's proposal. It is nakedly racist and represents an incompetent blunder that will disrupt the promotion of good community and race relations in this country. It has brought our already deplorable relationships with the black Commonwealth to a new all-time low. Incidentally, we have heard little about when visas for Nigeria will be introduced. I wrote to all the ambassadors and high commissioners asking what consultations the British Government have had with their Governments. They all said none, and many of them have expressed their views very forcefully.
I received a particularly interesting letter from the high commissioner for Nigeria. He told me that he was invited to a private meeting with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 18 July
when the concern of the British authorities at the increase of Nigerians arriving at British entry points was discussed with me.
Why was the Nigerian high commissioner invited to that meeting? What makes Nigeria so different from the other countries? Why has an announcement not been made about visas for Nigeria?
I understand that visas are not likely to be introduced until well into the new year. I, and no doubt others, will wonder whether that has anything to do with oil or with capital receipts held in this country from Nigeria. Why was the high commissioner for Nigeria invited to a very private meeting with an Under-Secretary of State? Indeed, that hon. Gentleman saw fit to leave the debate some hours ago. I hope that the Minister of State will give us an explanation.
This shoddy, squalid measure will be repealed by the next Labour Government, as was made clear in the statement issued by the NEC at our last annual conference. A Labour Government will introduce nondiscriminatory legislation to replace the Immigration Act 1971 and the British Nationality Act 1981. There will also be a major overhaul of the immigration rules, as they cause great difficulty to those who have a legitimate right to enter and visit Britain. The Government have not won the debate, although they will win tonight by administrative means. However, fair and reasonable people will see this as nothing more than a squalid, racist measure that needs to be repealed at the earliest opportunity.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Well over 20 hon. Members still wish to catch my eye, and some of them are going to be disappointed. Over-long speeches encroach on the right to speak of other hon. Members.

10 pm

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) was so keen to get over his synthetic indignation that he totally ignored your previous exhortation to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not ignore that request, even though the hon. Gentleman was more concerned to express his hysterical views than to allow other hon. Members, who know as much about the subject as he does, to speak.

Mr. Kaufman: Get on with it.

Mr. Dykes: I had to listen to the tirade of humbug by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I shall get on with my speech and I shall be more succinct than the right hon. Gentleman. Without hysteria I want to put over the proper case in support of this change in the regulations. I am not as close to Heathrow airport as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) but we must all dispassionately and honestly say that we have become more and more anxious about the way the system is working. It is operating to the detriment of bona fide visitors from many countries and especially from the countries that we are debating.
Contrary to the fears of Opposition Members, the visa system will be fairer to visitors than the present system. That is because the present system is getting out of hand and any hon. Member who pretends otherwise for superficial reasons of currying favour with a section of our national community or seeking cheap votes in the coming election is making a big mistake. They are also wrong in thinking that many of the immigrants who have come in in the last decade or so agree with their spurious and superficial arguments. They do not, because they want a system that is fair to all visitors.
I am beguiled by the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) that perhaps we should extend this visa system to more countries as time goes on. There is a lot of sense and rationale in that suggestion. This is not a beginning, because we already apply the visa system to many countries. The idea that it applies just to countries whose people are black or brown and not to countries with white populations is absurd. For different historical reasons we have applied it to various countries over the years and now we are extending the system. It will make a lot more sense to visitors wanting to come to Britain to have those visas in their passports before they leave their national territories. They will be safe and secure in the knowledge that the processing at Heathrow or at other airports or ports if they come by other means of transport or if they come from the continent of Europe will be much more speedy. It is absurd to say this is a retrograde step. It is a good step.
I welcome the ending of unfair pressure on hon. Members. I do not say unfair in the sense that we resent the amount of work involved because we do not, but sometimes in my surgeries a large number of these cases prevent me from looking at many cases of domestic problems, often affecting members of the ethnic minority communities as well as the host community.

Ms. Clare Short: Does the hon. Gentleman not share my fear that the people who will not get visas will be those on low incomes in their home countries? They would like

to come to see their families settled in Britain, but they tend to be discriminated against through the entry certificate system for permanent settlement. That is because anyone with a low income is suspected of having an intention to remain. When a visa system is in operation the genuine visitors coming to see my families settled in Ladywood will be turned down and visits for them will become impossible.

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) makes a valid point. Unfortunately, under all immigration or temporary visitor systems in all countries the officers empowered to handle the systems are naturally psychologically more inclined to let someone in if he is prosperous and well dressed and coming from a wealthy background. We can build corrective elements into the system which will avoid that problem. The Government are advocating the implementation of the postal application system. That will be much better for those applying for visas.
Some hon. Members have talked about long journeys but it is not our fault that some of these countries are large and people have to travel long distances. [Interruption.] I am making a perfectly logical point but the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) is getting carried away. People have to come to the capital city or to a large city to make the air journey. We must avoid this awful problem of people arriving here, having paid the air fare, and then having to go back. That money has been wasted and those people are deprived of the opportunity to visit their relations. I predict that if, by some grotesque national misadventure, a Labour Government were to be installed next time, which I do not expect, they would keep the visa system in place and probably extend it. By then they would realise how well the new system was working. People could apply for their visas easily and speedily.
Obviously, we will have to send more officers and officials to the operating centres to handle the applications, including to Africa, but the system will work much better than the awful, humiliating nightmare of ghastly queues at Heathrow airport. I share with other hon. Members the feeling of sympathy for those people who line up, worried sick about whether they will be admitted, what will happen, the long explanations that they must give to the entry clearance officer, and the fact that they cannot properly contact people until after that stage, while we go through with our passports with no difficulty.
Then there are the visitors who come to our surgeries and say that before they left India they were told that if there was any trouble they should contact the nearest Member of Parliament who would put the position right. The whole system has become absurd. I do not doubt the validity of doing that in genuine cases, but how can hon. Members of Parliament judge that? We are not experts. We need the expert training of immigration and temporary entrance officers to do that.
We do not know how many people are misbehaving and breaking the rules, but we know beyond any doubt that even if it is a small minority, those who do so, like naughty boys at the back of a class, are spoiling it for everyone and causing tremendous trouble.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Dykes: I shall not give way because of a lack of time. I shall be brief.
The visa system will be an ideal mechanism to overcome that problem. There will inevitably be problems when people apply, but I hope that they will be ajudged in their own country. I hope that the vast majority will apply through the new postal system. Applications must be and can be processed speedily. I hope that we shall see the system functioning rationally and smoothly, avoiding all the present nonsense. I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, West was not suggesting that we on this side agree with the rubbish written in The Sun.
Every hon. Member who has spoken has embarrassed my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State by paying glowing tribute, rightly, to his office and officials, but let us also pay tribute to immigration and temporary entrance officers who will be listening to the debate. I am the first hon. Member in this debate to say that theirs is not an easy job. We should pay tribute to their painstaking work in the face of grinding hours of work, with long queues shuffling through the airports. They, too, deserve a pat on the back for the humane, fair way in which they operate. We must avoid the hysteria of the Opposition, lead by the right hon. Member for Gorton. They are seeking to make short-term capital for obvious purposes, but they will not succeed, least of all with sensible immigrants and temporary visitors.

Mr. Speaker: It my be for the convenience of the House if I say that the first Front Bench speaker will seek to rise at 10 minutes to 11 o'clock. There have been long speeches and there is a long list of hon. Gentlemen who wish to take part.

Mr. Chris Smith: Two weeks ago the nephew of one of my constituents arrived at Heathrow from Bangladesh. He is a young man, wishing to visit his uncle for six weeks. He has two children in Bangladesh, a job to return to and a return ticket. He was refused admission at the airport. Because I intervened on his behalf he is still in detention. He is one of many victims of the absurd rush with which the Government introduced visa requirements for visitors from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. He is one among many whose relatives I have met and talked to during the past three weeks whose relatives have been caused enormous distress by the appalling way in which they and their visitors have been treated.
Not only are visitors who wish to stay with their relatives living in appalling conditions at Heathrow, but their relatives must travel to and from the airport without information, with precious little assistance and without knowing what is happening and under what conditions their relatives are being handled. Those people have suffered because of the Government's decision.
We are also worried about people who will wish to come here in future to visit their friends and relatives. What sort of treatment will they receive under the Government's new proposals? I am glad that many of my hon. Friends have recorded our distress, disquiet and anger at the manner in which many thousands of people visiting this country have been treated over the past few weeks. They have had a bad welcome from the Government and the country. It is a shame and disgrace to us all, but particularly to the Home Secretary who decided to introduce the visas.
The Home Secretary claims that he is worried about people who are not bona fide visitors and who may

abscond. Perhaps he should do as I did last weekend and speak to British Airways staff who deal with the cashing in of return tickets. That is one excellent guide to whether people intend to disappear into the community, as a Conservative member put it earlier. I was told that many people want to cash in the return half of their tickets, but the overwhelming majority are young, white Australians. Where is the Government's panic about Australian immigration? Where is the concern to impose visas on visitors from Australia? If the Government were really worried about people absconding, they would be taking action in that area.
We have to look elsewhere to find the reasons why the Government are precipitately imposing visa requirements on a selective group of five countries.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the panic created by the Government was essentially the product of a series of subjective and racist decisions by immigration officers over the past year to create just the atmosphere in which visas could be introduced and to create a racist hype for further restrictive immigration legislation later?

Mr. Smith: I certainly agree that there has been an absurd panic in bringing in these measures. If a Government announce that in 10 days' time they will impose a visa requirement, people will inevitably seek, in an urgent rush, to get in to visit their relatives, because they may fear that it will be their last chance for a long time to see people whom they have been wanting to see for many months or years.
I wish to put some specific questions to the Minister of State. First, what will happen to people in rural and remote areas of Bangladesh? Many such people have relatives in my constituency and they may wish to apply for visas to come here. The Government said that they will entertain postal applications, but what will be done about people who are not articulate, who perhaps cannot write or cannot read or write English? What provision will be made if the high commission in Dhaka decides to summon people for interviews because their applications are not clear? What provision will be made to enable people to travel to the high commission? Some may have to travel long distances or undertake difficult journeys to get the visa or even perhaps have their application turned down. Serious problems will arise and I do not believe that the Government have addressed them.
Secondly, there will be problems for people who are legitimately settled here, who hold foreign passports and wish to return here after visits abroad. The Government have said that a wretched visa exemption stamp can be put in passports, but how easy will it be to get one of those stamps? Will people have to queue for hours to have a visa put into their passports? Why is there not some provision for a stamp to be put in automatically at the port of departure when people leave to go abroad? Perhaps the Government might consider that as a genuine possibility to ease the plight of those who are legitimately settled here and wish to travel abroad.
The Government seem to be talking with two voices about how much of a guarantee of entry a visa will he. We listened to the Home Secretary's statement last week. We should have been justified in concluding that there was no guarantee that the provision of a valid visa would guarantee entry into this country. The Home Secretary


appeared to make that crystal clear in his response to questions last week, yet today the Home Secretary said that someone in possession of a visa should feel confident about gaining entry into Britain.
Which Home Secretary's statement are we to believe? What provision will be made and what criteria will apply in assessing whether someone in possession of a valid visa will be allowed to come in without let or hindrance? Will there be a lenghty questioning procedure, as at present? Will there be two questioning sessions—one by the high commission in Dhaka and another at Heathrow? Alternatively, are we witnessing tonight the institution of two hurdles rather than one for people who legitimately wish to visit their relatives in Britain?
Many aspects of the proposals are inhumane, unwelcoming, over-complicated, discriminating and impose enormous difficulties for thousands of innocent victims and visitors whose only crime — whose only dastardly crime in the eyes of the Government—is that they want to visit their relatives in Britain. It is the duty of those who represent the relatives, it is the duty of the House in all sensible decency, to reject the Government's proposals and to ask the Home Secretary, even at this late stage, please to think again.

Sir Peter Emery: I shall be brief, but I must point out that the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about his constituent who had to wait because of entry visa control will not be necessary once the visas are applied. The Government's intention is to try to stop the type of case to which he referred.
I rise because of the massive accusations levelled by the Opposition. Too much seems to be accepted these days because people shelter behind the argument that words or actions are anti-racialist. Sometimes an argument is accepted because it is against racialist tendencies. Equally, many people are afraid to express normal thoughts about our country for fear of being accused of being racialist, as we have heard today.
If anything has convinced me of that it is the speeches by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who suggested that our actions were similar to those of the Russians. They prove to me that the Labour party has no intention of holding to immigration control as the majority of our people wish.
I speak with all the feeling of one who has many coloured friends. I have been chairman of the Anglo-Ghanaian parliamentary group for over 20 years. Tom Mboya and Kwame Nkrumah met me at my flat in Paddington in 1951 to discuss pan-Africanism, so no one need make accusations about my qualifications.
I do not believe that it will do anything other than good for the genuine Ghanaians who want to come here to have to obtain a visa before they leave their country, rather than face refusal when they arrive. I have had to intervene with the Home Office on many occasions about cases which, if a visa application had been made in Accra, would never have encountered difficulties.
The statistics prove that the accusation of racism is wholly false. It is because of the refusals that many of the new arrangements have had to be introduced. The refusals

for entry during the six months to May 1986 had risen to 1,591—up 70 per cent.—for India; 971—up 38 per cent. —for Pakistan; 527—up 58 per cent.—for Bangladesh; 2,163—up 105 per cent.—for Nigeria; and 791—up 38 per cent. — for Ghana. Overall, that is a 68 per cent. increase in refusals, which must be a problem for the Home Office and for those working at Heathrow. By comparison, the refusals for Australia and Canada, using the same criteria, were 69 and 63 respectively. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that if the refusals for Canada, America or Australia rose by the same proportion as those for Ghana or Nigeria, the same requirements would be made of them as are being made of the five Commonwealth countries in question.
There are many aspects of the problem that people do not get up and speak about because they are afraid of being accused of being racialist. Many people want Britain to remain as Britain—they do not want it altered by a vast immigration factor. From the debate tonight it is clear that this country can have no assurance that if the Labour party were returned to power, immigrants would not flood into this country. That is the problem that we must face.

Mr. Dave Nellist: During a number of debates, I have, where appropriate, attempted to document the economic reasons why former Governments, especially Tory Governments in the 1950s, encouraged immigration to provide cheap labour for employers and industrialists. There is not time tonight to develop those points again, but it is necessary to state clearly that over the period that the British capitalist economy has declined from the illusion of the booms of the 1950s and 1960s to the realities of the recessions and slumps of the 1970s and 1980s, the very same Tory politicians, including the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), have changed their position. Now, together with the gutter press of this country, they are carrying out a relentless campaign, especially among the unemployed, the elderly and those in receipt of supplementary benefits, to portray black people as the cause of the increase in social problems through talk of floods of immigrants. Chief among them has been the Prime Minister who, on "World in Action" on 30 January 1978, said:
People are rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture.
This evening, we are witnessing how that same reactionary campaign has been continued over the past few weeks. On 16 October, the Daily Star spoke of "4,000 would-be immigrants" at Heathrow airport. On 21 October it also spoke of
millions of immigrants who have received succour and comfort in our land … Britain finally began to drop the portcullis and raise the drawbridge against the alien hoards … the human tidal wave.
On 14 October. the Daily Mail spoke about
A flood of immigrants trying to beat a Government crackdown".
On 15 October, under one-inch headlines, "Asian flood swamps airport", the Daily Express said:
Heathrow airport was under seige early today after a mass invasion of illegal immigrants".
In addition to those journalists, if that is not too generous a description of them in view of the jobs that they carry out on those newspapers, there have to be added the news agencies that put out stories to every local newspaper


talking about "floods of immigrants" at Heathrow airport. Those stories were reproduced in many local papers, including mine, the Coventry Evening Telegraph.
These people were not immigrants but tourists, mothers coming to see daughters give birth, sons coming to bury fathers. But the Government decision has introduced apartheid into tourism, enforced by Douglas Botha. The irony of that clear and open racism is the unfortunate ability of the Home Secretary to demonstrate that the origins of much of that legislation stem from former periods of Labour Governments. I hope that that never happens again.
Whatever the excuses being given by the Home Secretary, and his denials that the visa restrictions were against tourists from the Indian subcontinent for any racist reason, those inflammatory headlines and reports by the daily press have given a direct provocation to racism. Within a couple of days of those headlines appearing in the gutter press we saw an Asian newsagent's shop in Hackney being attacked and the words "3,000 more" daubed across the front of the shop. The same deliberate and calculated mood is being engendered up and down the rest of the country.
Working people can draw only one conclusion from that experience. It is that the Tory Government, just as Churchill 60 or 70 years ago played the Orange card to divide the working people in Northern Ireland, are beginning to play the black card, the racist card, to sow dissension among working people in the run-up to the general election.
What was the reality of the conditions facing working people at Heathrow? The Tory press would have us believe that everybody was put in £60-a-night, four-star luxury hotels. Perhaps one or two stayed in such accommodation but the truth is that for hundreds of Asian families there was chaos, misery and frustration. They were virtually imprisoned, waiting for days on floors at Heathrow to meet relatives. Many visitors and tourists were put into detention centres and even police cells.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a constituent of mine, for giving way. In view of the racist filth that one sees on the front page of The Sun, will my hon. Friend join me in suggesting that all Asian newsagents should refuse to sell the stuff?

Mr. Nellist: I have had the honour of being asked to address a mass meeting of Kent miners and Wapping strikers tomorrow and I shall make that point to those workers, to illustrate, apart from the nature of the dispute at Wapping, the reason why The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times and the News of the World, all the papers of Murdoch's empire, should be boycotted by working people.
The siege at Heathrow two weeks ago was reminiscent of a refugee camp. Frustrated and justifiably angry relatives were denied information. Some of them were herded 10 at a time, like prisoners, to go to the toilet. In a small way, I experienced that frustration by making numerous and largely fruitless telephone calls to the Home Office on these people's behalf. On their behalf this evening, I demand of the Minister that he announces the terms of compensation for their loss of earnings, for their trouble, for their accommodation and for the division of so many families that occurred for days and for weeks at Heathrow during this episode.

Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Nellist: I am sorry, I must continue.
There were forcible removals from Heathrow. A family from Essex has told of a brother-in-law who was told by immigration officers that he was being given entry, and was to be taken with 45 other visitors from Bangladesh to the arrival hall in a bus. The bus was instead driven on to the tarmac where immigration and police officers forcibly put these people on an aircraft that was flying to Dhaka.
This evening we have heard an attempt to justify the Government's action by citing numbers. Let us consider the numbers briefly. In 1985, 8·5 million visitors came to this country and 18,000 were refused entry. That is one in 474. The Home Secretary has talked of periodic upsurges in the numbers, and there has been a campaign by the Immigration Service Union deliberately to create periodic upsurges. There were 452,000 visitors from the five visa countries and even on the Home Secretary's statistics, only 222 did not return on the date that they said they would. As we know, the right hon. Gentleman uses the word "absconders". We are talking about one in 2,036 visitors, one twentieth of 1 per cent. It is a measure of Britain's decline that out of 8.5 million visitors from non-EEC countries and of 36 million passenger visitors in 1985, we are asked to take the action that the Government propose because 222 did not return on the date when they said that they would do so. It cannot be seen as anything but a racist decision. Not one Tory Member, and certainly no one on the Treasury Bench, has talked about the 200 million EEC nationals who could come to Britain tomorrow morning. No visa restrictions are being proposed for them.

Mr. John Whitfield: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Nellist: No, I cannot give way.
Instead, £40 million is promised to he spent on 50 officials being sent to the five visa countries. If 50 officials work 48 weeks of the year on a five-day week for eight hours a day, they will be expected to deal with one of these applications every 13 minutes. That is laughable. There will be immense delays for the families that are waiting in Dhaka, Delhi and the other places of application for visas to come to Britain. If there is £14 million kicking around in the Treasury, it would be far better to replace the 1,000 uniformed Customs officials who have disappeared under this Government and conduct a serious war against the illegal importation of drugs and the drug abuse that is taking place among young people.
The measure that is before us reduces the rights of Members effectively to represent their constituents and their interests. In many instances our power to stop is the only hope that families have for a review to take place of the ECO's decision. How will families in Coventry be able to challenge the decisions that are made in Delhi or Dhaka for example, not to issue a visa because of alleged discrepancies between the statements of potential visitors and sponsors? These decisions will be made when they are 6,000 or 8,000 miles apart.
An editorial in The Guardian 11 days ago adequately described the difficulties that will be faced by my constituents' families. The article states:
Earlier this year, the Guardian sent one of its own reporters, David Rose, to live and work with our immigration men in Bangladesh for a while. It wasn't, he found, like queuing for a US visa in Grosvenor Square. To the contrary, it was a battered, inevitably cynical mess. 'We don't send our


best people to Dhaka,' said an FO mandarin in Whitehall. Most of the Foreign Office staff came directly from Grade 10, the lowest clerical level. The secretarial back-up was pathetically inadequate, the job itself pulverisingly arduous. Endless travel, endless queues—around 12,000 long; endless waits and—in a land where paperwork is naturally scanty —judgments which time and again, could be based on no more than whether the supplicant immigrant seemed `shifty' or not.
Does anybody in their right mind wonder that when HMG grandly proclaims that all Bangladeshis seeking to come to Britain — whether as tourists or to join their (British) families living here—there's a rush to beat the ban?
Reasons such as those are why we oppose the restriction of Members' rights of representation.
This evening the Home Secretary repeatedly attempted to reject the charge of racism, but not once did he attempt to condemn the racist articles in the Tory press quoted by Labour Members. Is he aware of the attitude of some Heathrow immigration officers? According to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants:
After the visa announcement was made, the head of the Immigration Service, Peter Tompkins, wrote to all immigration officers. He thanked them for collecting the statistics which had 'enabled' the visa announcement to be made. That is not the language, nor are those the actions, of neutral civil servants, still less of people committed to providing a service to assist black people visiting Britain and to ensure family visits for people whose home is here.
The Home Secretary has not refuted the increasingly racial bias shown by members of the Immigration Service Union in their decisions at ports of entry. Whereas in 1983, 21 Indian visitors for every one Canadian were refused entry, in the first quarter of this year, 54 passengers from India for every one Canadian were refused entry. Between 1983 and 1985, passenger traffic increased by 20 per cent. But the staff of the Immigration Service increased by only 4 per cent. Far better to tackle those problems than to spend £14 million in five visa countries.

Mr. Whitfield: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nellist: No, I have nearly finished.
The biggest increase in refusals from the five visa countries began only after the Immigration Service Union officials met the Minister of State last year demanding curtailment of Members' rights of representation. The statistics cited by the Home Office come from there.
I end as I began, with a general point about the effect of the imposition of the rules. The justification of the press and the Tories inside and outside the Chamber and of their friends in further Right organisations in British society is that Britain is a small, overpopulated island which cannot cope with more immigrants. What are the facts? From 1973 to 1982, 2·27 million people left this country; only 1·8 million came in. The population therefore decreased by 430,000. Despite that decrease, unemployment increased over the same period from 531,000 in 1973 to 3,167,000 in 1983.
Unemployment, poor housing and declining social services are not caused by the number of immigrants. Indeed, black and Asian families often suffer the worst from these problems. I look forward to a Labour Administration that will repeal all the racist legislation passed in the past seven years and abolish the 1971 and 1981 immigration and nationality legislation. Above all, I look forward to a campaign on and explanation of the immigration issue, to explode all the Tory lies that

surround it and to explain how society needs a transformation along Socialist lines so that a programme of a full employment, decent housing, education and welfare provisions can be created for all in society and, by ending capitalist society, that disease of which racism is a symptom can be put in the dustbin of history for ever.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: I add my tribute, as I have done in previous speeches—although it is no less sincere for that—to the private office of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. Like other hon. Members, I deeply appreciate the officials' assistance and courtesy. I pay tribute also, as I am glad one of my hon. Friends has done, to the immigration officers. I have visited terminals 3 and 4 on three occasions. The officers were extremely courteous in showing me all the facilities available. They were courteous and helpful when I spoke to them on the telephone about individual cases. One should always bear in mind that they are working people.
We are assessing the effect that the rules will have on the balance between the right of visitors to come to this country and of our constituents to invite them, and the rights of the community to be protected against people coming to this country who are not entitled to come here and are not entitled to settle. As we are not changing the eligibility rules, one has to assess whether the new procedures affect those rights in any way.
If we look at the old system, we realise that anyone arriving in this country after a long flight from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh faces a long delay at the first point of passport control as people in front are questioned because the immigration officer is suspicious and they are suspected of not being bona fide. They then possibly face a secondary interview in cramped facilities, possibly having to wait for some time simply because there may be a discrepancy on their passport or for some other reason. They may then face detention in not very luxurious accommodation, and having visited Harmondsworth I can vouch for that. Even at that stage they face having wasted a lifetime, or many years, of savings on an air fare by being returned home.
Apart from all the inconvenience that a visitor may face under the old system, there is also the anxiety of the sponsors who, days or weeks before, contact their Member of Parliament because they are anxious about the fate of their visitor. The sponsor waits on the other side of immigration control wondering where his visitor is because he has not heard anything, and he phones his Member of Parliament at all hours of the day and night to find out what is going on.
If that system was just being proposed it would not even see the light of day. It would be ruled out as hopelessly inefficient, of no benefit to anybody and one which even the EEC Commission would not dream of. Under the new system, there is an application from a visitor, by post in most cases, or possibly by a visit. The evidence of applications that have been received so far overseas shows that the majority have been turned round in the same day. Any discrepancy that occurs is dealt with before people leave home.
People have mentioned the difficulty of contacting supporters to back up stories. Most of the evidence that visitors need to prove that they are genuine comes not from a sponsor within Britain, but from their friends and relatives in the villages of their own country. Therefore, if


there is any discrepancy it is much better for them to sort it out in their own country, where they can get people to write in support of them or go to the British post overseas to help sort out any muddle that may occur. Any discrepancy that does occur is much better discovered in the comfort of their own home than in an overcrowded waiting room at Heathrow, and much better discovered before the money, which can be ill afforded, is squandered on an air fare and before they suffer the indignity of having to spend several nights in Harmondsworth. Instead, they can look forward to a smooth entry once they arrive at Heathrow straight into the welcoming embrace of their sponsor, who knows that they will arrive at the time they state.
On behalf of the large number of my constituents who will be affected, I have looked at the new system in the light of all the accusations that are being made. It is difficult to find anything that is restrictive in the new system. I find nothing that is discriminatory and nothing that is anything but of benefit to my constituents. Certainly the evidence that I have managed to collect so far shows that in the first week over 3,000 applications were received in India. Of those, fewer than 1 per cent. were refused entry and the vast majority were turned round in the same day. In Pakistan about 1,200 applications have been received and only 2 per cent. have been refused. In India the figure is less than the refusal rate at Heathrow, and in Pakistan it is the same. It proves that the system, certainly in its early stages, is working to great benefit. It is no wonder that yesterday, when I deliberately spent the whole day with my Asian community in an attempt to explain the visa system, I found that once I had explained it the system received a warm reception. One Sikh in the Gudwara said that it was the best thing that the Government had done.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Perhaps he will send the hon. Gentleman a Christmas card.

Mr. Lawler: The hon. Gentleman should know better. Sikhs do not observe christmas. However, they do send me Eid cards.
Through its knee-jerk reaction to the proposal, the Labour party is supporting a system under which the majority suffer because of the minority who abuse that system, rather than supporting a new system which benefits the majority while at the same time severely curtails the opportunities for people to abuse the system by entering illegally.
It does not matter how many officers are installed at Heathrow. Obviously there is a limit to the physical capacity at the airport. Even if the number of officers is doubled or trebled, people will still be detained, there will still be wasted air fares, and there will still be questioning and delays. People will still undertake long flights and then have to submit to questioning, in poor circumstances. It is surely preferable that people know, when they apply for and receive a visa, that they will arrive on time at their destination, whether they apply to come to Brixton, Birmingham or Bradford. It is surely better that they know before they set off that they will arrive than to arrive not knowing whether they will reach their final destination.
Of course I found concerns among the Asian community in Bradford. Some of the anxieties arose from deliberate rumours and scares put round by those who, on political grounds, oppose the new proposal. Opposition

Members have been very good at waving newspapers around tonight, and I join in the condemnation of some of the language in those newspapers. However, I can also quote from newspapers. An hon. Member is quoted in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus as saying:
Bradford families would have to endure heartbreaking waits of up to 25 months for relatives to join them for short stays.
That is the kind of scare that has caused concern in the Asian community in Bradford.
I have also heard about a letter that is circulating in the Bangladeshi community in Bradford that is causing concern. That letter, too, is signed by an hon. Member. I have had the letter translated twice to confirm that its contents are accurate. I cannot speak Bengali, but I have been assured by those who speak Bengali that the translation is accurate. The letter says something to the effect that if someone is visiting Bangladesh and is resident in the United Kingdom, he must get a visa from Dhaka before he can return to the United Kingdom. That is the kind of scare that is worrying people in Bradford. The letter ends "Racists out, racists out." However, the language is ambiguous and could be translated as "Racists die now." Even I would not attribute that remark to the hon. Gentleman who signed the letter, as I know that he is against capital punishment. I gather that that part of the letter may have gained something in the translation.
Those are the scares circulating in the community in Bradford. It is no wonder that people panicked and came here at short notice and that there was chaos at Heathrow. Many of the genuine visitors who were caught up in that chaos can blame the Labour party for panicking them into arriving when they did. The Labour party must take much of the responsibility for that chaos.
I have two other points of concern to which I hope my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will respond. For those who are refused entry the current waiting time for appeal hearings for entry clearance refusals is nine or 12 months. That is no good if a visitor is applying for entry to attend a wedding that is to take place in two months' time. The purpose of the visit in that case will have disappeared. I hope that my right hon. Friend will review the appeals procedure and make it speedier for those refused visas for visits.
I also completely endorse the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who referred to those people arriving at ports of entry who still do not need a visa. He said that there should be some instant form of appeal. That would be a good substitute for the right of hon. Members to have the facility to stop the removal of people. That right puts Members of Parliament in an invidious position. It is also unfair in that it discriminates between two people on the same flight—one person who knows how the system works and how to contact a Member of Parliament, and the person on the next seat who does not. It is not a matter of knowing one's rights, but of who one knows and what one knows. There is universal agreement among bodies such as UKIAS and JCWI that the right should be removed because it is discriminatory. There is no case for Members of Parliament retaining such a right or for maintaining an unfair system, especially if there can be a right of instant appeal instead.
The adjective "racist" has been bandied about much tonight. That reveals a lack of understanding of what the word means, and it adversely affects the cause of racial


harmony. If everthing that the Government do to control the flow of people is called racist, the seriousness of the word is undermined. There is enough genuine racism. There is racism in employment and in housing and, at its worst, it manifests in itself in racial attacks. My constituents suffer from that as much as any other people with black or brown skin. Using the word in a general sense, as it has been used today, undermines its importance and creates a backlash in the majority white population, who get fed up with everything that affects the ethnic minority being labelled as racist. People who are genuinely trying to fight racism find that they are hindered because the word is abused by Opposition Members.
It is the Opposition, not the Government, who are on the defensive tonight. It is the Opposition who have panicked the ethnic minorities. As has happened often in the past, they have tried cynically to manipulate the ethnic minorities for their own political ends. I have news for them. Members of the ethnic minorities will not have their votes taken for granted by the Labour party. They are fed up with being cynically manipulated. The new system will benefit the vast majority of genuine visitors. As that fact comes to light during the next few months, the Labour party will be brought to account for the scares and rumours that it has spread to frighten my constituents.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have often ruled that it is out of order for an hon. Member to call another a liar because we are all hon. Gentlemans in this House and because that is one of the greatest abuses that one hon. Member can offer another. Surely the allegation, which has been made often by Opposition Members, that Conservative Members are racist is equally insulting and should therefore be ruled out of order. Could I have your guidance on that?

Mr. Speaker: If it was applied to an individual hon. Member, what the hon. Gentleman says would be correct, but while I have been in the Chair that has not been the case. Nevertheless, it is not a term that we should bandy about the Chamber.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: This debate has covered three main issues: the disgraceful scenes at Heathrow airport two weeks ago; the Government's policy in deciding to impose visa requirements on five countries; and the Government's renewed attempt to take away from hon. Members the right to act on behalf of our constituents when they experience difficulties at points of entry to this country.
The scenes at Heathrow airport were appalling, and I hold the Home Secretary directly responsible for them. Once the Government had announced their decision to impose visas, it was inevitable that people in other countries who had been planning their holidays here for some time would be afraid, quite understandably, that they might have difficulty in obtaining visas, or that at least they would be subjected to long delays. Therefore they did the most natural thing in the world. They reached this country for their holidays before the date of implementation of the scheme.
Immigration officers at Heathrow were perfectly aware that there would be a rush of people to beat the deadline.

For some strange reason, the Home Secretary was unaware of it, and it seems to me that he did not care. After all, those who suffered—the tourists and their hosts were not white. I wonder what people from other countries must have thought of all this if, by some chance, it happened to be passing through Heathrow airport on one of those days two weeks ago. Yet all those difficulties for people at Heathrow airport could have been prevented.
No information was given to advice agencies until the last minute. I was asked at meetings up and down the country what would be the position if those who are settled here wanted to go abroad on holiday and then come back. I could not give an answer. Furthermore, until the last minute our posts abroad were unable or did not try to inform people about the position. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that a number of unscrupulous travel agents abroad tried to cash in. They, not Labour Members of Parliament, spread panic, with the result that people tried to get on aeroplanes to come here in order to beat the deadline.
On those critical days communications at Heathrow airport broke down. No information was given about what aeroplanes had arrived. Bangladesh Biman airline—whose normal practice is to issue information about its passenger lists—was told on the critical day that, for security reasons, it would not be allowed to give that information to those who were waiting. I never discovered why. Telephone calls to the immigration department were not answered.
Furthermore, the British Airports Authority was not warned by the Home Office of what was about to happen, although it was in the middle of refurbishing terminal 3. On the critical days, therefore, when the visa system was being introduced that part of the terminal building where people were waiting for their visitors to arrive had its telephones taken away. The refreshment facilities also disappeared because that department was being refurbished. That was hardly a sensible way to deal with a situation that many hon. Members think the Minister could clearly have anticipated.
I was asked to telephone the Home Office on the previous day—I believe it was 14 October — by a community worker at the airport, who explained just what the difficulties were for those on the other side of immigration control: those who live here and who were waiting for their guests.
Furthermore, parties of tourists from the Indian subcontinent came to Britain and then went on a trip abroad that was organised by a British travel agent. One party of visitors was taken abroad by Cosmos. When those visitors returned to Dover with the intention of going to Heathrow airport to fly back to India, they were refused admission. After many protests they were given temporary admission to return to Heathrow as part of their Cosmos tour and then fly back to India. What an absurdity; what a lack of foresight; what a lack of planning.
Some of my hon. Friends have already referred to the behaviour of the press. The BBC and Independent Radio News also talked about hundreds of immigrants, when they should have known that these people were not immigrants but visitors and tourists. Some reports in the press sounded very much like Conservative Central Office handouts. It was a sad day for the British press when the normal standards of journalistic integrity were thrown out of the window. Indeed, at least one newspaper should be charged with incitement to racial hatred for the way in


which it covered those scenes at Heathrow airport and what it imputed to some of the people waiting to come here.
The British papers encouraged a wave of hysteria and misunderstanding about what was going on. Is that what the Home Secretary wants to create in Britain? Why did only Labour Members tell our people the truth about what was happening? Why did Home Office Ministers keep quiet in the face of all the lies and misrepresentations from the newspapers?
I am using my words carefully when I say that many people in the Asian communities in Britain are afraid of and have been subjected to racial attacks. If there is to be an increase of such attacks—I sincerely hope that there will not be — the Home Office Ministers bear a responsibility for that.
Where do the press get the misleading stories from? Who was talking to the press about what was said to immigration officers at the airport by people who had arrived? Was it officials belonging to the Home Office? Was it immigration officers who, on those busy days, went out to give impromptu press conferences which built up the wave of hysteria? If that is the case we should like to know. The least that the Home Secretary could do would be to have an inquiry as to how officials working for him were so busy giving statements to the press about what, allegedly, was happening at the airport.
Let me deal with the issue of principle. I am still looking for the evidence on which the decision was based. Some figures have been quoted. Let me quote one or two more. In March to May 1985 some 63,380 visitors from the subcontinent arrived. In the same period in 1986 the figure had increased by just under 3 per cent. to 64,540. The initial refusals in 1985 were 1,056 and in 1986, 1,719, an increase of 62 per cent. in the refusal rate. In other words, taking the subcontinent as a whole, it went up for those three months from a refusal of one in 60 to one in 37. That compares with refusal rates of about one in 5,500 for Australia, one in over 7,000 for Cananda, one in 4,500 for the United States and one in some 800 against South Africa.
Why did the refusal rate increase so much? The Home Secretary would have us believe that the pattern of visitors changed from one year to the next. He would have us believe that different sorts of visitors began arriving. The other explanation seems to be that the immigration officers, either spontaneously or in concert, decided to increase the refusal rate. That would fit in with the express policies of the ISU. I put it to the Home Secretary that at the very least those two explanations have equal weight. I should have thought that the second carries more weight with an impartial observer.
Nobody disputes that the conditions at Heathrow airport at peak travel times can be congested. I went about four or live weeks ago, early in September, just after the visa plans had been announced but before much impact could he seen from them. I was at terminal 3 on a Saturday morning. At least half the desks were not occupied by immigration officers when people were coming in and the arrival building was congested. I asked the immigration officers why more were not on duty and I was told that that was a problem and all the other terminals were being telephoned for more officers. No other officers arrived, so people had to wait. The least that the Government could have done was to have enough officers at the airport.
The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who has experience of these matters, made an interesting point. He talked about the possibility of an appeals system at the airport — an interesting suggestion which we should develop. The total cost of the present appeals system is about £2.25 million, and adding a direct appeals system at the airport — something for which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has been arguing for some time — would not be all that costly.
Why do we oppose this visa scheme? First, it has been introduced for only five countries. Some hon. Members talked about India, but although the Indian Government had in mind only four or five countries from which terrorists might come to India, they applied it to all countries, at great cost to them. But they did it so that they would not be seen to be discriminatory in the way that this Government have been discriminatory. Our second criticism is that, so far, the scheme has been unnecessary. The Government have not demonstrated the need for it. The first step should have been the appointment of more immigration officers at Heathrow, and then we could have seen what was necessary thereafter. Thirdly, the scheme is incredibly costly. Fourthly, there is the fear — it is almost a certainty—that there will be a higher rate of refusals for visitors applying to posts on the subcontinent and in West Africa than is the case at Heathrow airport. More people will simply not get in.
We know from the evidence of people who have applied for visitor entry certificates on a voluntary basis that, worldwide, there has been a 50 per cent. success rate in appeals against refusals. That suggests astonishing lapses in the decisions that have been made at posts abroad. I cannot guarantee that the same figures would apply to the subcontinent, but at the very least it is likely.
If the Home Secretary believes that visas are such a good idea, why did he not encourage people on the subcontinent to obtain visas for tourism on a voluntary basis? We know that officers at the posts in the subcontinent—certainly in Bangladesh— have said that they are too busy to do this sort of thing. They say, "Do not bother. Just go to Heathrow airport and take your chance." That has been the story for years. The Home Secretary should have done that if he had wanted his arguments to carry any weight.
We are worried that there will be delays in issuing visas and delays in the appeals system, which will strike hard at people coming here for urgent compassionate reasons. There will be 12 extra entry certificate officers in India to deal with tourist applications. That suggests that they will have to process 70 applications a day. The Home Secretary said, "Some of the applications will come in by post." If he is so concerned about the way in which visitors are dealt with, surely a face-to-face interview at Heathrow airport is a better check on the bona fides than dealing with applicants by post. In the end, not many will be dealt with by post.
Of course, there is a knock-on effect. If people are supposed to be dealing with 70 applications a day—we know that that is impossible—what will happen? Staff dealing with the settlement queues will be taken away and asked to deal with the tourists, which will mean even longer delays for people wishing to settle here. The proposals are clearly discriminatory in intent, and they will be discriminatory in their effect.
The Government tried in the past to remove hon. Members' rights to make representations, and we have resisted that. Now the Government argue that visas make the stop procedure unnecessary. Of course, pressure on the airlines will mean that not that many people will arrive from those countries without visas. Nevertheless, there will be some. Let me give examples showing why the right for hon. Members to retain the stop facility will still be important. The first example is where the visa holder is refused entry. The Home Secretary will say that there is a right of appeal, but we need the right to intervene when a visa holder has been stopped so that we can at least argue that he should be released from detention. There is no guarantee that the visa holder will not be held at Harmondsworth while the matter is resolved through the appeal system.
Secondly, there may be doubts about the nationality of the person. A person may arrive with dual nationality and may well wish to claim his other nationality in order to be allowed in from a country to which visas do not apply. Thirdly, somebody may arrive who is ill and who cannot be sent back. Fourthly, it is just possible that young children may arrive and it would be quite unacceptable for them to be sent halfway across the world in order to apply for a visa. There may be urgent compassionate reasons why somebody should be admitted—perhaps because of an impending funeral. It may well be that the person wishes to claim refugee status but has nevertheless been refused entry by an immigration officer at Heathrow airport.
Lastly, what about residents returning here who for some reason have failed to get their visa exemption stamp? Are they to be sent back halfway across the world to apply for the stamp somewhere else? For these and other reasons it would be a denial of justice to take away from us the right to act on behalf of our constituents and the people that they wish to have visit them. I have to make it clear yet again, because Government Members do not wish to listen, that, in government, the Labour party will continue to exercise firm immigration control. [Interruption] As the Home Secretary does not appear to be listening, I shall repeat the point. The Labour party in government will exercise firm immigration control, but we shall repeal the legislation and replace it with non-racially discriminatory measures. Can I make it clearer than that to the Home Secretary?
This debate is not about immigration: it is about the right of people to come here on holiday and about the rights of our constituents to be visited by their friends and relatives. The Government's proposals are racially discriminatory because they are saying that black tourists are less welcome than white tourists. We shall welcome all who want to spend a holiday here and that is why we shall vote against the Government.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): On 15 October the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), commenting on the flood of arrivals during the previous two or three days, said:
They are simply tourists. The imposition of visas has nothing to do with immigration controls, but restriction on tourists.

In the debate those words were echoed by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). This was after thousands of people from the Indian subcontinent had flooded into Heathrow in every possible way. They came direct from the Indian subcontinent, by Kuwait Airways, Gulf Air, Egyptian Airlines, Thai Airlines, Malaysian Airlines, Singapore Airlines, Air Canada, Quantas and Aeroflot. Many people might conclude that when a visa requirement is announced people do not rush to get into a country by any means, nor that they normally take off suddenly and decide to travel thousands of miles to visit relatives with whom perhaps they have not had any contact for years. They do not do such things unless they feel that if they delay and if their claims to enter as visitors are carefully examined abroad, they will not pass the test.

Ms. Clare Short: rose—

Mr. Waddington: Therefore, they feel they had better try while the going is good. What happened in those last few days may be said to go a long way towards proving the case for visas. It is absolutely absurd to criticise the Government and the immigration service for having difficulties in dealing with that influx in the circumstances in which it occurred.
What happened on 12, 13 and 14 October was not an entirely new phenomenon. It was only an intensification of what our staff had to cope with throughout the summer. There had been an enormous rush of Nigerians seeking entry in July—1000 arriving on one day and 3,000 in a week. What happened in October was only an intensification of what happened between July and October 1985, when 1,006 Bangladeshis arrived at terminal 3, many of them young men claiming to be business men, carrying kits of bogus documents to substantiate that claim.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Waddington: If Labour Members are not prepared to face up to those uncomfortable facts, they are not fit to be a party in government.
The right hon. Member for Gorton and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said that the troubles on 12, 13 and 14 October could have been avoided if only there had been more staff. I remind them that staffing has been increased year on year since 1979. The 1986 figures show that there are 90 more immigration officials in post in 1986 than in 1985. Between 12 and 20 additional staff were on duty at terminal 3 until 14 October and on 14 October no fewer than 54 additional staff were in post. Even so, they could not cope, for obvious reasons, as any sensible person could recognise.
The problem facing immigration control over the past year could not have been solved by extra staffing. There is insufficient detention accommodation —[Laughter.] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are now saying that every person who arrived at Heathrow at the beginning of October should have been let into the country, although they could not make out their application to enter as visitors. In this case our claim is fully substantiated, but right hon. and hon. Gentlemen want a weakening of immigration control. It is pure humbug of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to pretend that a Labour Government would maintain firm immigration control. That has been proved by their ridiculous mirth in the past few moments.
There has not been sufficient detention accommodation to deal with the large numbers who have arrived at


Heathrow and who have been unable to substantiate their claim to enter as visitors. They have been unable to show us that they are genuine visitors who have not intended to remain here either to work for a long period or for settlement.
We do not have the secondary examination accommodation. Any hon. Member who has been to Heathrow knows that to be the case. There is not space in terminal 3 for us to interview more people than are being interviewed at present. Clearly, when they are first seen by an officer at the desk their claim to enter is at least in doubt. So it is not just a question of putting things right by having more immigration officers. It cannot be done in that way and I do not believe that any Opposition Members who have studied the problem really believe that it can be dealt with by putting more immigration officers in post.
Then there is the ridiculous charge of racism, made by the right hon. Member for Gorton and rebutted admirably and sensibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). It is an absurd claim. Indeed, it is as absurd as such a charge would have been in 1969, although it is clear that the change made then was aimed at people coming from the Indian subcontinent and not at people coming from Australia. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said on that occasion that the difficulty was
the great majority of dependants from India and Pakistan make no use of the entry certificate procedure."—[Official Report. 15 May 1969; Vol. 783, c. 1793.]
and, therefore, he was faced with an enormous problem. Labour Members may be interested to know that that was the first time in an immigration debate that a Minister spoke about a "flood" of immigrants.
Surely the whole matter was put in proportion by the Prime Minister of Nigeria who said on 3 September:
Visas are a technical and administrative matter. It is not a political Decision.
He was entirely right. He recognised that it is for every individual country to decide how best to operate the mechanism of immigration control and that if we felt it right to use the mechanism of visa control we were perfectly entitled to do it, in order to weed out genuine tourists from those who are pretending to be tourists.
We have never imposed visas on the basis of colour. Before these changes—[Interruption.] I wish that hon. Members would listen, because they might then not go out of the Chamber as ignorant as they were when they came in. I remind hon. Members that before this visa requirement was introduced, visas were required from citizens of Poland, China, the Congo and Burma. I make that white, yellow, black and brown.
Some people say that we should have imposed visas on other countries, just to demonstrate that there is no racism in our decision. That suggestion was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), but it would be absurd to impose visas on countries where it is not necessary to have a visa regime, merely to avoid completely unwarranted charges of racism. There is no point in swimming along with the tide and accepting the validity of arguments about racism when a moment's examination of the facts will show that they are utter rubbish.
As for hon. Members' representations, I remind the House that we are talking about the present right of hon. Members to intervene to stop a removal. We are not

talking about taking away from hon. Members the right to make representations in immigration cases. It is, therefore, not correct to say, as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said, that he will be deprived of the right to intercede on behalf of his constituents. That is simply not the case.
In visitor cases hon. Members ask for stops because they are questioning the judgment of the immigration officer that the individual concerned is not a genuine visitor and they want me to look at the case and review the officer's decision. But now, in the case of a visa national arriving without a visa, there will normally be nothing for me to look into, so the justification for that system disappears.
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) was kind enough to congratulate members of my private office on their work. I shall pass that on to them. He said that sufficient resources were not being provided for the Indian subcontinent to deal with the new regime. That is not correct because 31 additional staff are going to the Indian subcontinent and Ghana, and 26 are now in place. The rest will be there by the end of the week. It is clear from what my right hon. Friend said that the new regime is settling down and working well.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) pointed out the obvious—that there is far more pressure to get into this country illegally from some countries than from others. It is therefore scarcely surprising that there is a difference between refusal rates among nationals of some countries as compared with others.
My right hon. Friend said that he could see positive advantages in having same-day appeals for those refused entry. However, that must be a long way off because it would require primary legislation. Other countries have learnt from experience that it is easy to give a person an immediate right of appeal and to allow that person into the country, but that it is easy for that person thereafter to use every possible legal device to stay.
The hon. Member for Rochdale said that no case of his had been overruled. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a vivid illustration of a case in which he overruled a decision by an immigration officer. It should be a salutary lesson to all Opposition Members who have been so willing to talk of massive abuse even when the total number of those who disappear is small compared with the total number of passengers. How can one say that there is not massive abuse if 201 performers arrive, 138 are granted leave and 103 disappear? Nobody but a fool would say that there is not massive abuse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North not only suggested that it might be a good idea to have visas for all, but asked me whether we intended to extend the visa regime further. The answer to that must be no. However, the duty of any Government is to keep immigration control under continuing review and to react appropriately according to circumstances. That is precisely what we are doing tonight.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West said, surprisingly, that it would be better to maintain the present system and to make the decisions here because those decisions could be made more cheaply. Decisions are not made more cheaply if the decisions are erroneous because of the pressure upon the immigration service at the port of entry. Nobody can doubt that in those last few days before the visa regime was introduced people were


admitted to this country who, in normal circumstances, would not have qualified under the immigration rules. That was an inevitable consequence of enormous pressure.
One or two matters of great importance have emerged during the debate. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Gorton that Labour would remove the visa requirement if returned to power. One cannot imagine a more irresponsible pledge. It is pledge to restore to Heathrow all the troubles, dislocation and inconvenience to the bona fide travellers, not least those from the Indian subcontinent, who form the vast majority. It is a pledge to restore the dislocation from which we are now escaping.
Labour would do all that at the same time as repealing the Immigration Act 1971 and the British Nationality Act 1981 — the twin pillars upon which the whole of our immigration control is based. It would do so at the same time as it was charging the immigration officers to relax procedures, within an hour of taking office. That is what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 260.

Division No.297]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Alton, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)


Anderson, Donald
Deakins, Eric


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dewar, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dixon, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dormand, Jack


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Douglas, Dick


Barnett, Guy
Dubs, Alfred


Barron, Kevin
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Eadie, Alex


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blair, Anthony
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fisher, Mark


Boyes, Roland
Flannery, Martin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Foulkes, George


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bruce, Malcolm
Freud, Clement


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E.


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gould, Bryan


Canavan, Dennis
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hardy, Peter


Cartwright, John
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Clay, Robert
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cohen, Harry
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Coleman, Donald
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Howells, Geraint


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Douglas


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Crowther, Stan
Janner, Hon Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
John, Brynmor


Cunningham, Dr John
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dalyell, Tarn
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald





Kennedy, Charles
Raynsford, Nick


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Redmond, Martin


Kirkwood, Archy
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lamond, James
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, George


Leighton, Ronald
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Rooker, J. W.


Litherland, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Livsey, Richard
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Edward
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McCartney, Hugh
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


McGuire, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McKelvey, William
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


McTaggart, Robert
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Madden, Max
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Martin, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Maxton, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maynard, Miss Joan
Strang, Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Michie, William
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Mikardo, Ian
Tinn, James


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wainwright, R.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wareing, Robert


Nelhst, David
Weetch, Ken


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Michael


O'Brien, William
White, James


O'Neill, Martin
Wigley, Dafydd


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Park, George
Wilson, Gordon


Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Woodall, Alec


Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Penhaligon, David



Pike, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prescott, John
Mr. John McWilliam and


Radice, Giles
Mr. Ray Powell.


Randall, Stuart



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brooke, Hon Peter


Alexander, Richard
Browne, John


Amess, David
Bruinvels, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Tom
Budgen, Nick


Ashby, David
Butcher, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Butterfill, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Baldry, Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cash, William


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bellingham, Henry
Chapman, Sydney


Bendall, Vivian
Chope, Christopher


Benyon, William
Churchill, W. S.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Blackburn, John
Clegg, Sir Walter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cockeram, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Simon


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cope, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Corrie, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Couchman, James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Cranborne, Viscount


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Crouch, David


Bright, Graham
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brinton, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dicks, Terry






Dorrell, Stephen
Heddle, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Hickmet, Richard


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Hicks, Robert


Dunn, Robert
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Durant, Tony
Hind, Kenneth


Dykes, Hugh
Hirst, Michael


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Eggar, Tim
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Emery, Sir Peter
Holt, Richard


Evennett, David
Howard, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Fallon, Michael
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Favell, Anthony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldlord)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Fletcher, Alexander
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Forman, Nigel
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Hunter, Andrew


Forth, Eric
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Jackson, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Jessel, Toby


Freeman, Roger
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Fry, Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Gale, Roger
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Galley, Roy
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Key, Robert


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Goodlad, Alastair
Knox, David


Gorst, John
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Gow, Ian
Lang, Ian


Gower, Sir Raymond
Latham, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony
Lawler, Geoffrey


Gregory, Conal
Lawrence, Ivan


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Grist, Ian
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Ground, Patrick
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Lester, Jim


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Hannam, John
Lightbown, David


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Lilley, Peter


Harvey, Robert
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Haselhurst, Alan
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Lyell, Nicholas


Hawksley, Warren
McCrindle, Robert


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Macfarlane, Neil


Hayward, Robert
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)





MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Pollock, Alexander


Maclean, David John
Porter, Barry


McLoughlin, Patrick
Portillo, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Powell, William (Corby)


McQuarrie, Albert
Powley, John


Madel, David
Price, Sir David


Major, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Malins, Humfrey
Raffan, Keith


Malone, Gerald
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Maples, John
Rathbone, Tim


Marland, Paul
Renton, Tim


Marlow, Antony
Rhys Williams, Sir BranCon


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Mates, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Mather, Carol
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Maude, Hon Francis
Rowe, Andrew


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Ryder, Richard


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Mellor, David
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Merchant, Piers
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Shersby, Michael


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Miscampbell, Norman
Squire, Robin


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Murphy, Christopher
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nelson, Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wall, Sir Patrick


Normanton, Tom
Watts, John


Norris, Steven
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Onslow, Cranley
Whitfield, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wiggin, Jerry


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Wilkinson, John


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Winterton, Nicholas


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Patten, Christopher (Bath)



Pattie, Geoffrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Pawsey, James
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mr. Peter Lloyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Haemodialysis Patients (Attendance Allowance)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Michael Colvin: It is a pleasure to introduce this Adjournment debate, and I begin by congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) on his appointment as Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. I gather that this is the first adjournment debate to which he will reply, and I hope that it is the first of many. May they all be at this somewhat reasonable hour.
I welcome the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the case of Roland Read of the town of Totton in my constituency. Roland Read is 18 years old and suffers from Allport's syndrome, which affects kidney function and necessitates him receiving kidney dialysis twice a week. Last year, Roland received a kidney transplant which, sadly, was unsuccessful, and his dialysis treatment continues.
Roland is being treated as an out-patient at a pioneering unit at St. Mary's hospital, Portsmouth, under Professor H. A. Lee. Roland is a self-care patient—he uses the dialysis machine at the Meon 5 ward at St. Mary's out of hospital hours, without the assistance of trained nursing personnel. The only help Roland receives is from his mother, who accompanies him, prepares him for the dialysis and cleans the machine ready for the next patient. Medical assistance is not available from members of staff on-site but must be summoned if necessary by telephone, as if the patient were dialysing in his own home. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) is in the Chamber at this well-attended Adjournment debate because I know that he has a constituent who is also a self-care patient at St. Mary's hospital. I think that he will have something to add to this debate when I have concluded my remarks.
It is because Roland's treatment takes place in the precincts of a hospital that I specially raise his case, as the setting-up of the unit at St Mary's post-dates the Social Security Act 1979 under which Mrs. Read, Roland's mother, attempted without success to claim an attendance allowance for his care. The regulations governing the payment of attendance allowance stem from section 35(1) of the Social Security Act 1975. That Act was widened in 1979 by Statutory Instrument 1979/375 to include persons suffering from renal failure, treated regularly for dialysis for two or more sessions a week, provided they satisfied the prescribed conditions. Patients carrying out home dialysis can qualify for an attendance allowance, although not all do. Regulation 5c specifically excludes any patient dialysing as an NHS out-patient. But what is an outpatient?
At that time, no patient receiving dialysis in hospital would have done so without the direct supervision of a member of staff. The so-called self-care treatment pioneered by the Wessex regional authority, which covers both my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North, and organised by the unit at St. Mary's is something entirely new. Patients such as my constituent are in an anomalous situation because of the novel methods of treatment they are receiving.
St. Mary's hospital has an active transplant programme and self-care is seen as a new option for kidney patients. Eight patients are using self-care facilities at the hospital, but within the Wessex regional health authority, there are already units at Basingstoke and at St. Leonard's in Ringwood.
The unit at Ringwood was set up at a capital cost of £42,500 and has the facilities to dialyse 12 patients a week. That capital cost compares favourably with the cost of installing home dialysis equipment, which is confined to the use of one patient only, while the hospital units are available for multiple use. I understand that the cost of installing dialysis equipment at a patient's home, using a portakabin specially adapted for the purpose, is around £1,000 merely to lift the portakabin into place, notwithstanding the cost of the equipment itself. Of course, it would cost another £1,000 to lift the portakabin out of the home if the patient received a successful transplant and no longer needed dialysis. That is not to decry this country's excellent record in providing home dialysis facilities, whereby over half the patients receiving dialysis treatment do so within their own home.
The self-care treatment available within Hampshire could well help relieve the pressure on dialysis facilities and allow an increasing number of patients to be treated. We have yet to get the final figures for 1985, but it appears that the number of new kidney patients treated last year rose from 35 to about 40 per million. That is an excellent record, but there is still room for improvement. In fact only last week my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), who I am also glad to see in the Chamber, was given leave to bring in a Bill
to establish procedures for eliminating the waiting lists of patients who require kidney dialysis by contracting out the provision of such facilities.
He pointed out that experts have estimated that in England and Wales alone about 1,200 kidney patients are not being served by the dialysis or transplant programmes. I am sure that if the kind of treatment being offered at St. Mary's hospital, Portsmouth, and the other units is taken up elsewhere in the country not only could those kidney patients be served but, alas, there may also be an increasing number of patients such as Roland Read who are debarred from receiving an attendance allowance, despite the fact that they are carrying out exactly the kind of self-care they would perform in their own homes.
Only a small number of such patients are affected at present. A switch to that type of care could effectively penalise the carers. While patients are trained to be self-reliant and to operate the machine single-handedly, in practice most patients need the assistance of a helper. In Roland's case his mother drives him on the 60-mile round trip to the hospital and spends one and half hours preparing the machine. Roland then spends six hours on the machine with a further three quarters of an hour spent in cleaning the machine. That happens twice a week and on many occasions the couple do not get home until the small hours of the morning. It would be a great burden for a young person to undertake such treatment entirely alone.
The attendance allowance that is available to home dialysis patients would assist with the expenses incurred by self-care patients such as Roland, whose co-operation enables expensive National Health Service equipment to be used more frequently without additional staffing costs.
On 4 September 1986 our local paper, the Southern Evening Echo, said:


They say the Lord and the system always helps those who help themselves and the more you give in life the more you get back.
But for an 18-year-old kidney victim and his mum, self-help was met with a well-aimed financial kick in the teeth from the State.
The article by Mr. Dermot Martin is tough-speaking but is probably true. It ends with a quotation from Professor Harry Lee, who is in charge of Roland's treatment. He did not mince words when he said:
Those thickheads at the Ministry haven't realised yet that Mrs. Read is simply doing at the hospital what others are doing at home and getting financial help for. Our scheme here has full Government approval.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister had these cases under review but I hope to seek his reassurance that the regulations may be amended so that self-care dialysis patients may qualify for an attendance allowance in the same way as do those who carry out home dialysis.
Following the article I have quoted, a letter was published in the Southern Evening Echo. It was entitled:
Thanks a lot for such kindness".
The letter said:
Roland and I wish to thank the two people who have anonymously sent us cash donations after reading in the Echo of our struggle to get an attendance allowance owing to Roland myself for doing self-care dialysis.
It is nice to know that somewhere some people care and their donations are gratefully received.
It is now up to the Minister to demonstrate that he too cares.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: With the permission of the Chair and the agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), I should like to add a short rider to what my hon. Friend has said. In giving my full support to his comments I should like to relate what happened recently. A Portsmouth patient approached me to point out that self-dialysis patients do not have immediate access to trained help or assistance should they find the need. He told me that it takes well over 10 minutes for anyone to respond to a call from the dialysis unit to the hospital. At first I thought that that was the kind of exaggeration that people bring into such descriptions. However, when I raised the matter with the hospital authorities I was surprised to find that they agreed that there could be a delay of more than 10 minutes between the time a call was made and trained assistance being available.
The hospital authorities continued to claim two mitigating circumstances. First, they suggested that dialysis patients often help each other. If another patient was available, he would help the patient in difficulty. Secondly, the authorities stated—I am sure that this is true—that self-dialysis patients are very carefully trained before they are allowed to become self-dialysing. However, my point and the point which was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, is that the regulation which suggests that a patient who is an outpatient at an hospital is not eligible for an attendance allowance was made when the assumption was that the patient going to the hospital had ready, early and immediate access to skilled help. If it is accepted by the hospital authorities in Portsmouth that there can be a gap of more than 10 minutes before help is available, the situation in the hospital dialysing unit is analagous to that in the patient's home. The rules regarding the attendance allowance ought to be the same.

Mr. Tony Favell: With the consent of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) I would like to make a brief contribution I would like to support my hon. Friend's plea for help by way of attendance allowance for self-dialysing patients.I support the payment of the allowance, for two reasons. It releases expensive capital equipment to help others and it gives people the opportunity to lead a normal life. When one has to use a kidney machine twice or three times a week during the day, it is very difficult to hold down a job. That throws people on the state. If patients are able to use kidney machines at night — I commend the initiative in that respect—it will allow kidney patients to lead a normal life. For that reason I support my hon. Friend's plea this evening.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on winning the ballot for the debate tonight. The amount of interest which it has caused and the reasonable hour at which it is being held are also grounds for congratulation.
It is a great pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) in his place, as he brings his great and personal knowledge to this subject which is important to so many people. I shall be glad to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside and to my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), and for Stockport (Mr. Favell).
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside for the clear way in which he set out the problems, which, as he recognises, arise from the happy development of scientific methods of treatment—developments which were not foreseen some years ago when the regulations were first devised, or in 1979 when they were altered to ease the position.
In the time available I shall set out the background, the new circumstances as described by my hon. Friends, the way in which we have approached the problem and how we seek to tackle it.
With regard to the background, renal failure, and the consequent need for dialysis, rightly command considerable sympathy from all of us. Dialysis techniques have, of course, improved over the years, together with surgical intervention with kidney transplants. Many thousands of people are now able to lead normal lives as a result. 'The introduction of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in particular has freed many dialysis patients from the need to use machines, and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport about the need to dialyse at night was along those lines.
Of course, not all patients can make use of these techniques, and many still rely on haemodialysis machines and can spend up to six hours two or three times a week dialysing on one of the machines. About 4,000 people dialyse by machine. Around 2,000 of them have the machine installed at home once the hospital has trained them and a relative or friend in the machine's use. Emergency help is provided by the hospital should the equipment fail.
For the remaining 2,000, dialysis is undertaken in a hospital which the patient visits regularly for the purpose.


This may be because particular problems need expert supervision or because there is no scope in the home environment for installing the necessary equipment.
Expanding facilities for the treatment of end-stage renal failure is one of the Government's priorities and we have encouraged health authorities to experiment with a variety of new ways—of which this is one—of providing the service to make the best use of resources and to take account of patients' needs. There are now satellite dialysis units away from main renal units, some of them outside hospital premises, and we commend all of these imaginative initiatives and this flexible approach. My hon. Friend has told the House of another development this evening. The facilities in the main renal unit in Portsmouth and other locations he mentioned are now being used during the night on what is called a "self-care" basis although, within the hospital, we understand, there is no supervision by the hospital staff—the length of time to obtain service if the bell is rung is some indication of that — and the patient brings his own helper with him to help connect him to the equipment and later to disconnect and clean up, unaided or supervised by the hospital staff.
The House will see, therefore, that methods of dialysis are continually developing in an effort to match the needs of patients with the best possible use of resources. Portsmouth health authority has produced a novel approach within the hospital environment. It is, of course, early days, and I am sure that it will be monitoring the situation, as we hope to do, to see how it works out.
We are discussing this matter tonight because of the availability or otherwise of attendance allowance to those using dialysis equipment. Eligibility for attendance allowance depends, as one might expect, on one or more of the statutory conditions being satisfied. The conditions relate to frequent attention throughout the day or prolonged or repeated attention at night in connection with a person's boldily functions or, alternatively, to a need for continual supervision by day or night to avoid substantial danger to the person or someone else. Decisions about whether the conditions are satisfied are the responsibility of the independent attendance allowance board and of doctors delegated by them to make decisions on their behalf.
I have already indicated that dialysis techniques have improved over the years, and by 1979, the attendance allowance board found that haemodialysis in many cases no longer satisfied the criteria because the attention required was not frequent or prolonged and any supervision was not continual. I emphasise that this was not so in every case but in a substantial number of cases.
The Government were anxious to assist those using haemodialysis machines and we decided that, even though the then statutory conditions were not met, we would, exceptionally, treat them as satisfied. In consequence, regulations made in 1979, following an amendment to the Social Security Act 1975, deem those dialysing at home by machine at least twice a week during the course of which they need attention from another person to satisfy the conditions for a lower rate allowance.
The regulations made it clear, however, that those dialysing in hospital—herein lies the problem with the changed circumstances — as out-patients were not included in this deeming provision. This is in line with the underlying principle of attendance allowance that it is for

those being cared for at home and if care is provided wholly or partly out of public funds, it is not payable. That, then, is the background to the case my hon. Friend has put so lucidly to us this evening. His constituent, Mr. Roland Read, was found by the attendance allowance board—rightly applying the present regulations—not to satisfy any of the conditions for attendance allowance, and the 1979 deeming provisions do not apply because the dialysis is carried out in hospital as an out-patient.
Portsmouth health authority, having set up its self-care units, has altered the picture. Here we have patients using hospital equipment within the hospital, but supported and supervised entirely by a relative or friend—in this case Mr. Read's mother—and I understand that no provision is made by the hospital for supervision.
The authority and the National Federation of Kidney Patients Associations have indicated that since this puts the patients in self-care units in a position analogous to those dialysing at home, they should not be regarded as hospital out-patients and attendance allowance should be payable. It will be clear, I hope, from what I have already said that this would require an amendment of the existing regulations. I have already told my hon. Friend in correspondence that we are looking carefully at the position to see whether it would be right to change the regulations.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a person on a kidney dialysis machine is quite unable to move? Therefore, although the helper may not be doing anything, he is needed in case the patient gets the cramps in his limbs, which is extremely common, or if something goes wrong with the machine. The notion that the attendant puts a patient on the machine and then leaves is unrealistic.
A second point that is exercising the minds of some kidney patients—here I must declare an interest, as I am on kidney dialysis at home and receive an attendance allowance—is what their position will be when the new Social Security Act comes into force.

Mr. Lyell: I am very glad to answer both of my hon. Friend's points. I welcome the fact that he has emphasised that once one is on a machine—nobody will know that better in this House than my hon. Friend — one is unable to help oneself. That is one of the reasons why an attendance allowance should be payable to those at home. The inability to help oneself is common to dialysis both at home and in a hospital.
On my hon. Friend's second point about the effect of the changes that will be introduced by the Social Security Act 1986, I am very happy to make it abundantly clear that they will not affect the way in which attendance allowance is paid. It will most certainly continue to be paid after the changes come into effect, just as it is paid now.
We have commissioned a major study of both the number and the needs of disabled people generally. That study is now being conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. We shall be reviewing benefits for the disabled as a whole in the light of that study. We expect the results of the survey to be available in 1988, after which we shall review the whole picture in relation to the disabled. I emphasise that the changes to the 1986 Act will make no difference to the payment of the attendance allowance. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
I have already said that we shall look carefully at the point that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member


for Romsey and Waterside and see whether it would be right to change the regulations. Although I cannot go further than that at the moment by way of a commitment, I can outline some of the positive steps that we shall be taking and some of the relevant aspects that will need to be examined.
The first positive step that we have in mind is that in the near future we propose to send a small team from the Department to the Portsmouth area to study the whole position, in consultation, among others, with Professor Lee. We are sure that that will help us, and we hope that it will help generally. We shall need to ascertain the precise criteria for a self-care unit. We must analyse the distinction between a patient in a self-care unit and an ordinary hospital out-patient. We must ask ourselves how far the absence of supervision by the hospital alters his status.
In that context we need, to some extent, to consider the legal aspects. The federation has expressed some concern about the hospitals' liability or otherwise should an emergency arise and their responsibility for a patient while on the hospital premises. The key question is whether there is a real distinction between the present case and those cases of dialysis in hospital as full out-patients.
At present we are concerned with only two comparatively small units and a third, as I understand it, in preparation. They have established a particular pattern, of which we have heard tonight, but which still concerns only a comparatively few people, important cases in themselves, but showing the way and therefore a way that we must analyse.
However, we must envisage, and we do, that other authorities may develop their own solutions to the problems of matching dialysis patients' needs to the best use of resources. We need to consider our options against a slightly wider background than just this particular case.
We are fully committed to providing attendance allowance to those renal failure patients who need attention at home while dialysing at least twice a week. We shall look carefully at the path which my hon. Friend advocates, but before we commit ourselves to go down it we need to be sure that it is the best solution in everyone's interests and the best use of resources. The position is not yet completely clear cut but we shall press ahead to give the matter our clear and constructive consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve midnight.